DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17, as recited in an amendment filed on October 24, 2025, were previously pending and subject to a final office action filed on December 2, 2025 (the “December 2, 2025 Final Office Action”). On March 2, 2026, Applicant filed a response to the December 2, 2025 Final Office Action, which amended claims 1, 2, and 12 (the “March 2, 2026 After Final Response). On March 9, 2026, an Advisory Action was mailed to Applicant advising that the amendments in the “March 2, 2026 After Final Response would not be entered, because: (1) they raised new issues that would require further consideration and/or search; and (2) they were not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the issues for appeal.
On April 2, 2026, Applicant filed a Request for Continued Examination in accordance with 37 CFR 1.114, where Applicant requested entry and consideration of claims 1-17 as filed in the March 2, 2026 After Final Response (the “April 2, 2026 RCE”). Based on the April 2, 2026 RCE, claims 1-17, as recited in the March 2, 2026 After Final Response, are entered, currently pending, and subject to the non-final office action below.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pp. 9-12, Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 Section, filed March 2, 2026 and entered by the April 2, 2026 RCE, with respect to rejections of claim 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Further, in light of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (available at MPEP § 2106) (the “2019 Revised PEG”), the § 101 rejections of claims 1-17 are maintained in this office action.
Applicant argues that “the presently claimed invention is clearly and directly tied to the technological improvement described in paragraphs [0063]-[0065] of US 2025/0259751 [Applicant’s patent application published]”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. When evaluating whether claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or a technical field, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP § 2106.05(a). The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. In the present case, Applicant has not identified a technical problem, nor has Applicant explained the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claims. Specifically, the description in paragraphs [0063]-[0065] of Applicant’s published patent application (Fukushima et al. Pub. No. US 2025/0259751) does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field. For example, paragraph [0063] in Applicant’s published patent application, merely states in a conclusory manner that according to Embodiment 1, it is possible to predict the future risk of one user becoming in need of nursing care or support, form the gait information and the terminal usage information obtained from the mobile terminal of each of the plurality of users. Further, the description in paragraphs [0064] and [0065] in Applicant’s published patent application also state that providing the user with the risk information allows the user to become more aware of the need for changing the user’s behavior to avoid the risk, and accumulating data related to such changes in a user’s behavior is estimated to increase the accuracy of the predicted risks. This amounts to stating the idea of a solution (i.e., predicting the future risk of a user becoming in need of nursing care or support from certain collected data) without describing the details of how that solution is accomplished, by stating in a conclusory manner that the benefits and advantages of the disclosed systems and methods may be in the providing the risk information to a user to enable the user to change their behavior.
These are not technical improvements, because Applicant has not identified a technical problem that the claimed invention solves and has not identified which limitations in the claim solve such a technical problem. Rather, the list of advantages in paragraphs [0063]-[0065] of Applicant’s published patent application amount to an improvement to the abstract idea and stating the idea of a solution without describing the details of how that solution is accomplished. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, the Federal Circuit court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Similarly, Applicant’s claims merely provide risk information in the form of an output (i.e., merely displaying information). This does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field.
The fact that Applicant uses a prediction model to make the future risk predictions to merely performing the mental process in a computer environment with a prediction model. Further, the prediction model is claimed at a high level of generality, because Applicant has not described the prediction model with any specificity, and the claims do not recite the specific steps that the prediction model goes through in order to make the predictions. Therefore, this claim limitation is recited at a high level of generality, amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract mental process, and generally links the abstract idea to the prediction model related technologies. For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
Consequently, the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained in this office action. Please see the amended rejections under the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section below, for further clarification and complete analysis.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitations are:
- "an obtainer" as described in claims 1 and 12;
- "a prediction model unit" as described in claims 1 and 12;
- "provider" as described in claims 1 and 12; and
- "updater" as described in claim 7.
Because this claim limitations is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
- Applicant discloses sufficient structure in the specification for the aforementioned limitations which are deemed to invoke § 112(f). Specifically, Applicant discloses that: (1) the “obtainer 11 is, for example, a communication interface”; (2) “the prediction model unit 13 includes, for example, a communication interface, a memory, and a processor (microprocessor)”; (3) the “provider 14, is for example, a communication interface”; and (4) the “updater 15 includes, for example, a communication interface, a memory, and a processor (microprocessor)”. See Applicant’s specification as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraphs [0027], [0031], [0042], and [0044]. Based on this descriptions, (1) the obtainer and provider may be embodied by any type of communication interface, such as any physical connection devices and circuitry that allow electronic devices to exchange data (e.g., a display, USB, HDMI, network connections and circuitry, etc.); and (2) the prediction model unit and updater may be embodied by any generic device that includes a communication interface, a memory, and a processor, such as a generic CPU or computer device. Therefore, for examination purposes, (1) the obtainer and provider are interpreted as generic communication devices, such as a display or network connections and circuitry; and (2) the prediction model unit and updater are interpreted as generic computer devices, such as a CPU (e.g., a processor with a memory and communication interface).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG
Following Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-11 and 14-17 are directed to a health management support system, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 12 is directed to a health management support system, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See id. Claim 13 is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture). See id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1, 12, and 13 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 1 is a system, while claim 12 covers the matching method claim and claim 13 covers the matching non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites the following limitations (and claims 12 and 13 similarly incorporate the following limitations):
A health management support system comprising:
an obtainer that obtains personal data from each terminal device of a plurality of users at predetermined time intervals, the personal data including gait information on the user and terminal usage information indicating a usage status of the terminal device of the user;
a storage device that accumulates population data including the personal data on each of the plurality of users obtained by the obtainer;
a prediction model unit that predicts a future risk of one user becoming in need of nursing care or support, using a prediction model, from time-series personal data that is the personal data on the one user accumulated in the storage device for a predetermined time period, the one user being included in the plurality of users, the prediction model being a model for predicting the future risk by applying the population data to the personal data that includes temporal changes; and
a provider that outputs, to the terminal device of the one user, provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicates health management support for the one user;
wherein the gait information indicates a relation of at least two of a daily walking time, a walking speed, or a total number of stairs climbed,
the terminal usage information includes at least one of a frequency with which the one user exchanges an email using the terminal device, a length of a sentence included in the email, or a total number of persons with whom the user exchanges the email,
the prediction model:
includes a model that stores the population data and diagnostic data, the population data indicating temporal changes in gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at a medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support;
when the personal data having temporal changes in gait ability of the one user is input, searches the population data for data whose temporal changes in gait ability match the personal data input;
determines whether the diagnostic data of a user corresponding to the data
obtained by searching the population data is present; and
when determining that the diagnostic data is present, refers to the diagnostic data of the user and predicts a future risk of the one user becoming in need of nursing care or support, and
the model is a model constructed by collecting the population data and the diagnostic data, the population data indicating the temporal changes in the gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at the medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Mental Processes category covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) (i.e., a health management support method for predicting a future risk of a user becoming in need of nursing care or support, comprising obtaining personal data including gait information of the user and terminal usage information of the user, searching population data for data whose temporal changes in gait ability match the personal data input; determining whether the diagnostic data of a user corresponds to the data obtained by searching the population data; and predicting a future risk of the user becoming in need of nursing care support based on time-series personal data). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claim 1 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1, 12, and 13 encompasses concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., a health management support method for predicting a future risk of a user becoming in need of nursing care or support, comprising obtaining personal data including gait information of the user and terminal usage information of the user, searching population data for data whose temporal changes in gait ability match the personal data input; determining whether the diagnostic data of a user corresponds to the data obtained by searching the population data; and predicting a future risk of the user becoming in need of nursing care support based on time-series personal data).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1, 12, and 13 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, because they merely recite limitations which encompass a person mentally and/or manually obtaining personal data from a user and predicting a future risk of a user becoming in need of nursing care or support (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually obtain such data and make a prediction of a person (i.e., the user) becoming in need of nursing care or support).
Further, Applicant’s claims are similar to claims which have been held to recite an abstract mental process. For example, the Federal Circuit held the a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality amounted to steps that could practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A.). Similarly, Applicant’s claims recite steps for collecting information (i.e., obtaining personal data of a plurality of users and accumulating population data including the personal data); analyzing the data (i.e., using a prediction model to predict a future risk of a user becoming in need of nursing care or support); and displaying certain results about the collection and analysis (i.e., outputting provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted), at a high level of generality. Therefore, the aforementioned underlined claim limitations may reasonably be interpreted as mental/manual observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person, such as a healthcare professional. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 13 recite an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes category.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, and 14-17 include limitations that further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. For example, claims 2-6 merely recite the type of data that is used by the prediction model to generate the predictions of future risk of a user becoming in need of nursing care or support (i.e., these steps are deemed to be reasonably performed mentally or manually using a pen and paper, because they modify the data that is used for the observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions for predicting the future risk of a user becoming in need of nursing care or support). Similarly, claims 8, 9, 11, and 15 merely recite the type of information that is generated and/or output to the terminal device of the user (i.e., these steps are also deemed to be reasonably performed mentally or manually using a pen and paper, because they modify the data that is used for the observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions indicative of the health management support). Lastly, claims 14 and 16 include limitations that directed to organizing the personal data, generating the prediction result of a future health condition and measure to be taken against the prediction result, and generating a response to the question from the one user (i.e., these steps are also deemed to be reasonably performed mentally or manually using a pen and paper, because they amount to simple to observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions indicative of the health management support).
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts 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.” See MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f)-(h).
In the present case, for independent claims 1, 12, and 13, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A health management support system (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) comprising:
an obtainer (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that obtains personal data from each terminal device of a plurality of users (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) at predetermined time intervals, the personal data including gait information on the user and terminal usage information indicating a usage status of the terminal device of the user;
a storage device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that accumulates population data including the personal data on each of the plurality of users obtained by the obtainer (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving data in a memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
a prediction model unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that predicts a future risk of one user becoming in need of nursing care or support, using a prediction model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), from time-series personal data that is the personal data on the one user accumulated in the storage device for a predetermined time period, the one user being included in the plurality of users, the prediction model being a model for (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) predicting the future risk by applying the population data to the personal data that includes temporal changes; and
a provider (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that outputs, to the terminal device of the one user, provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicates health management support for the one user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
wherein the gait information indicates a relation of at least two of a daily walking time, a walking speed, or a total number of stairs climbed,
the terminal usage information includes at least one of a frequency with which the one user exchanges an email using the terminal device, a length of a sentence included in the email, or a total number of persons with whom the user exchanges the email;
the prediction model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)):
includes a model that stores the population data and diagnostic data, the population data indicating temporal changes in gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at a medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
when the personal data having temporal changes in gait ability of the one user is input, searches the population data for data whose temporal changes in gait ability match the personal data input;
determines whether the diagnostic data of a user corresponding to the data
obtained by searching the population data is present; and
when determining that the diagnostic data is present, refers to the diagnostic data of the user and predicts a future risk of the one user becoming in need of nursing care or support, and
the model is a model constructed by collecting the population data and the diagnostic data, the population data indicating the temporal changes in the gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at the medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support; and
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, storing computer executable instructions (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 13). However, the recitation of these generic computer components and functions in claims 1, 12, and 13 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., using generic computer devices to perform the abstract idea of: a health management support method for predicting a future risk of a user becoming in need of nursing care or support, comprising obtaining personal data including gait information of the user and terminal usage information of the user, searching population data for data whose temporal changes in gait ability match the personal data input; determining whether the diagnostic data of a user corresponds to the data obtained by searching the population data; and predicting a future risk of the user becoming in need of nursing care support based on time-series personal data), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
- The following is an example of court decisions that demonstrate merely applying instructions by reciting the computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed limitations (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- Reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec – similarly, the steps directed to: “using a prediction model” merely recite the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., performing these mental steps using a prediction model) without reciting the necessary details to show what the model does with the data (i.e., beyond the practically mentally performable steps) in order to make the predictions of a future risk of the user becoming in need of nursing care or support.
- A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, e.g., see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l – similarly, the current invention implements the commonplace medical business method of predicting a future risk based on current data (i.e., the Examiner submits that the additional elements directed to the system, comprising: the obtainer, each terminal device, storage device, prediction model, and provider; and program, are generic computer devices implementing generic software).
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) – similarly, the current invention requires software components and the apparatus (i.e., the prediction model and the program) to perform the abstract idea.
- The following is an example of an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Example of Mere Data Gathering/Mere Data Outputting:
- Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, e.g., see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. – similarly, the steps directed to: “obtaining personal data from each terminal device”; “accumulating population data including the personal data on each of the plurality of users”; “outputting provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicating health management support for the one user”; “the model storing the population data and diagnostic data, the population data indicating temporal changes in gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at a medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support”, described in claims 1, 12, and 13, are necessary data gathering/outputting steps (i.e., “obtaining the personal data”; “accumulating population data”; “storing the population data and diagnostic data”, are (1) necessary data gathering steps in order to make the predictions of future risk; and (2) outputting the provision information is a necessary data outputting step in order to convey the results to a user.).
- The following are examples of generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(h)):
- (1) Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.; (2) Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu; and (3) Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc. - similarly, the limitations directed to: “using a prediction model”; and “the prediction model includes a model that stores the population data and diagnostic data, the population data indicating temporal changes in gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at a medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support” amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of prediction models/prediction software technologies. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1, 12, and 13 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, and 15 do not recite any additional elements outside of those identified as being directed to the abstract idea described above. Examiner notes that dependent claims 7, 10, 14, 16, and 17 recite the following additional elements identified in bold font below (with limitations deemed to be part of the above identified abstract idea identified in underlined font):
further comprising: an updater that obtains administrative data managed by an administrative body (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), and updates the prediction model, using the administrative data obtained, the administrative data including behavior information on each of a plurality of persons including a usage status of public transportation and nursing care status information indicating whether each of the plurality of persons is in need of nursing care or support (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 7);
wherein the provider includes a generative artificial intelligence (AI) (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), and the generative AI receives, from the one user, a question about a health condition of the one user to generate a response to the question, using the prediction model, and outputs the response (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 10);
wherein the provider includes a generative artificial intelligence (AI) (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), and the generative AI receives, from the one user, a question about a health condition of the one user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and organizes the personal data on the one user by inputting the question from the one user to the prediction model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), generates a prediction result of a future health condition and a measure to be taken against the prediction result, and outputs the resultant to a terminal device of the one user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 14);
wherein the generative AI (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) further generates a response to the question from the one user, using the prediction model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), based on the question from the one user and the prediction result of the future health condition, the terminal device of the one user: displays the question from the one user in an input region (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); displays a result of the organizing of the personal data on the one user and the prediction result of the future health condition in a graph display region (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); displays the response to the question from the one user in a response display region (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and displays a measure to be taken against the prediction result in a measures display region (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 16); and
wherein the input region, the graph display region, the response display region, and the measures display region are regions displayed on a same screen (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the input region is displayed aligned above the graph display region (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the graph display region is displayed aligned above the response display region and the measures display region (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the response display region is displayed aligned on right or left of the measures display region (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 17).
As such, the additional elements in claims 1, 7, 10, 12-14, 16, and 17 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception 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, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-17: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) 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 whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1, 7, 10, 12, and 13, as recited, the health management support system; obtainer; each terminal device; storage device; prediction model unit; prediction model; provider; program; updater; generative artificial intelligence (AI); and the steps directed to: “accumulating population data including the personal data on each of the plurality of users obtained by the obtainer”; “outputting, to the terminal device of the one user, provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicates health management support for the one user outputs, to the terminal device of the one user, provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicates health management support for the one user”; “the prediction model includes a model that stores the population data and diagnostic data, the population data indicating temporal changes in gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at a medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support”; “obtaining administrative data managed by an administrative body”; “updating the prediction model, using the administrative data obtained, the administrative data including behavior information on each of a plurality of persons including a usage status of public transportation and nursing care status information indicating whether each of the plurality of persons is in need of nursing care or support”; “the generative AI receives, from the one user, a question about a health condition of the one user to generate a response to the question, using the prediction model, and outputs the response”; “wherein the provider includes a generative artificial intelligence (AI), and the generative AI receives, from the one user, a question about a health condition of the one user”; “inputting the question from the one user to the prediction model”; “the terminal device of the one user: displays the question from the one user in an input region”; “displays a result of the organizing of the personal data on the one user and the prediction result of the future health condition in a graph display region”; “displays the response to the question from the one user in a response display region”; “displays a measure to be taken against the prediction result in a measures display region”; “wherein the input region, the graph display region, the response display region, and the measures display region are regions displayed on a same screen”; “the input region is displayed aligned above the graph display region”; “the graph display region is displayed aligned above the response display region and the measures display region”; and “the response display region is displayed aligned on right or left of the measures display region”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the health management support system; obtainer; each terminal device; storage device; prediction model unit; prediction model; provider; program; updater; and generative artificial intelligence (AI); and the steps directed to: “the prediction model being a model for performing the (mentally performable) predicting the future risk by applying the population data to the personal data that includes temporal changes”; “updating the prediction model, using the administrative data obtained, the administrative data including behavior information on each of a plurality of persons including a usage status of public transportation and nursing care status information indicating whether each of the plurality of persons is in need of nursing care or support”; “wherein the provider includes a generative artificial intelligence (AI)”; “inputting the question from the one user to the prediction model”; “the terminal device of the one user: displays the question from the one user in an input region”; “displays a result of the organizing of the personal data on the one user and the prediction result of the future health condition in a graph display region”; “displays the response to the question from the one user in a response display region”; “displays a measure to be taken against the prediction result in a measures display region”; “wherein the input region, the graph display region, the response display region, and the measures display region are regions displayed on a same screen”; “the input region is displayed aligned above the graph display region”; “the graph display region is displayed aligned above the response display region and the measures display region”; and “the response display region is displayed aligned on right or left of the measures display region”, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion. For example, Applicant discloses that: (1) health management system is realized by a computer that includes a processor (microprocessor), a memory, a communication interface, etc. (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0026]); (2) the obtainer is a communication interface that is capable of communicating with a mobile terminal (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0027]); (3) the storage device is hard disk drive (HDD) or a solid state drive (SSD) (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0027]); (4) the prediction model unit includes a communication interface, a memory, and a processor (microprocessor) (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0031]); (5) the prediction model may be subjected to machine learning (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0036]); (6) the mobile terminals bay be smartphones (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0037]); (7) the provider is a communication interface that is capable of communication with a mobile terminal (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0042]); and (8) the updater also includes a communication interface, a memory, and a processor (a microprocessor) (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0044]); and (9) the generative AI is a generative AI engine, such as ChatGPT®, OpenAI, LLaMA, Bard, etc. (see Applicant’s specification, as filed on February 14, 2025, paragraph [0067]). The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these hardware and components are conventional. Thus, Applicant’s disclosure indicates that hardware and software components are conventional in nature (i.e., well-understood, routine, and conventional computer devices and software). Therefore, the Examiner submits that these additional elements represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer devices and functions which are known in the medical industry.
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
- The Examiner submits that these limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the limitations directed to: the generative artificial intelligence (AI); and the steps directed to: “the prediction model being a model for performing the (practically mentally performable step of) predicting the future risk by applying the population data to the personal data that includes temporal changes”; “the prediction model includes a model that stores the population data and diagnostic data, the population data indicating temporal changes in gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at a medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support” amount to limiting the abstract idea to the field of prediction models and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (see MPEP § 2106.05(h) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Therefore, these limitations are also deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B for similar reasons since they are claimed in a generic manner.
- Regarding the steps and features directed to: the steps directed to: “accumulating population data including the personal data on each of the plurality of users obtained by the obtainer”; “outputting, to the terminal device of the one user, provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicates health management support for the one user outputs, to the terminal device of the one user, provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicates health management support for the one user”; “the prediction model includes a model that stores the population data and diagnostic data, the population data indicating temporal changes in gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at a medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support”; “obtaining administrative data managed by an administrative body”; “the generative AI receives, from the one user, a question about a health condition of the one user to generate a response to the question, using the prediction model, and outputs the response”; “the generative AI receives, from the one user, a question about a health condition of the one user”; and “outputs the resultant to a terminal device of the one user” - The following represents examples that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly the limitations directed to: “obtaining personal data from each terminal device of a plurality of users at predetermined time intervals, the personal data including gait information on the user and terminal usage information indicating a usage status of the terminal device of the user”; “outputting, to the terminal device of the one user, provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicates health management support for the one user outputs, to the terminal device of the one user, provision information that is generated based on the future risk predicted and indicates health management support for the one user”; “obtaining administrative data managed by an administrative body”; “the generative AI receives, from the one user, a question about a health condition of the one user to generate a response to the question, using the prediction model, and outputs the response”; “the generative AI receives, from the one user, a question about a health condition of the one user”; and “outputs the resultant to a terminal device of the one user”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent the mere collection and transmission of data over a network (i.e., the aforementioned limitations are each the equivalent of receiving and transmitting data over a network). See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
- Storing and retrieving data in a memory, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly the limitations directed to: “accumulating population data including the personal data on each of the plurality of users obtained by the obtainer” and “the prediction model includes a model that stores the population data and diagnostic data, the population data indicating temporal changes in gait ability of each of the plurality of users, the diagnostic data being generated at a medical institution when some of the plurality of users are certified as in need of nursing care or support”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent the mere storage of data in a memory (i.e., accumulating population data in a storage device and storing the population data and diagnostic data in a prediction model, are merely examples of storing data in a memory device). See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Therefore, the additional elements described in claims 1, 7, 10, 12-14, 16, and 17 are deemed to be additional elements which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1, 7, 10, 12-14, 16, and 17 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 7, 10, 12-14, 16, and 17 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, and 15 (which depend on claim 1 due to their respective chains of dependency), do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, and 15 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional components as described above in the subject matter eligibility rejections of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, and 15 merely add limitations that further narrow the abstract idea described in independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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 Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights