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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites an “information storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute…” which can, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in accordance with the instant specification, be interpreted as software per se. The computer is not positively recited in the claim and therefore does not render the claim statutory.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a system for a watching device, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 8 is drawn to a method for watching, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 9 is drawn to an “information storage medium,” which does not distinguish Claim 9 from a transitory medium or article of manufacture, and hence Claim 9 does not fall within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A | Prong One
Claims 1-7 (Group I) recite a watching device, comprising:
at least one processor (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it); and
at least one memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations including (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it):
acquiring biometric information on a person to be measured;
determining whether the person to be measured is in an abnormal state based on the biometric information;
reporting, when the person to be measured is determined to be in the abnormal state, that the person to be measured is in the abnormal state;
determining whether the person to be measured is in a predetermined temporary physical state; and
restricting the reporting when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 8 and 9 is identical as the abstract idea for Claims 1-7 (Group I).
Dependent Claims 2-7 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites wherein restricting comprises changing a determination criterion to be used in determining whether the person to be measured is in the abnormal when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state, Claim 3 recites the operations further comprising determining an influence level of the predetermined temporary physical state for the person to be measured, and wherein reporting comprises changing the determination criterion to be used in determining whether the person to be measured is in the abnormal state, in accordance with the influence level, Claim 4 recites wherein, when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state, reporting comprises inhibiting execution of the reporting until the person to be measured is determined not to be in the predetermined temporary physical state, Claim 5 recites wherein determining whether the person to be measured is in the predetermined temporary physical state based on the biometric information, Claim 6 recites wherein determining whether the person to be measured is in the predetermined temporary physical state by using a machine learning model trained through use of the biometric information on a person who is in the predetermined temporary physical state, and Claim 7 recites wherein the predetermined temporary physical state is a state after drinking or a state after exercising, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 8 and 9.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Furthermore, Claims 1-9 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of processor and memory device, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see pages 4 and 8 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (Examiner also notes that although a computer is not positively recited in the claims, the specification discloses the watching device includes a general purpose computer including a CPU and a memory on page 8 of the disclosure.).
Step 2B
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Pages 4 and 8 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. processor and memory) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems (specifically, a general purpose computer), that are configured to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Examiner notes the claims do not recite any additional elements that are interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore does not require any well-understood, routine and conventional activity analysis per MPEP § 2106.
Dependent Claims 2-7 include other limitations, but they do not contain any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent claims.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified 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, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning 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 1-9 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0140231 A1) in view of Otsuki (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0142728 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo discloses a watching device, comprising:
at least one processor (Paragraph [0053-0054] discuss the system including a processor.); and
at least one memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (Paragraph [0054] discusses the system including a memory.), causes the at least one processor to perform operations including:
acquiring biometric information on a person to be measured (Paragraph [0118] discusses acquiring biological data, construed as including biometric information, from the wearable sensor of a user.);
determining whether the person to be measured is in an abnormal state based on the biometric information (Paragraphs [0122-0123] discusses determining if the patient is in an abnormal state based on the biometric data collected.);
reporting, when the person to be measured is determined to be in the abnormal state, that the person to be measured is in the abnormal state (Paragraph [0124] discusses reporting that the patient is in an abnormal state.);
but Kubo does not appear to explicitly disclose:
determining whether the person to be measured is in a predetermined temporary physical state; and
restricting the reporting when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state.
Otsuki teaches:
determining whether the person to be measured is in a predetermined temporary physical state (Paragraphs [0068-0069] and [0141] discuss the user being in different states, such as after having done heavy exercise, construed as a predetermined temporary physical state.); and
restricting the reporting when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state (Paragraphs [0085], [0088], [0103-0105] and [0140-0141] discuss that based on the state of the body, such as after heavy exercise, there is no abnormality even if the user’s heart rate is higher than normal as the conditions for detecting abnormalities are dynamic. When any abnormalities are detected, the result in an alert, and if there are no abnormalities, the process ends and nothing is reported.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubo to include determining whether the person to be measured is in a predetermined temporary physical state; and restricting the reporting when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state, as taught by Otsuki, in order to “attenuate frequency components that would be noise without attenuating the frequency component indicating heartbeat through the band-pass filtering (Otsuki, Paragraph [0067]).”
Regarding claim 2, Kubo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein restricting comprises changing a determination criterion to be used in determining whether the person to be measured is in the abnormal when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state.
Otsuki teaches wherein restricting comprises changing a determination criterion to be used in determining whether the person to be measured is in the abnormal when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state (Paragraphs [0085], [0088], [0103-0105] and [0140-0141] discuss that based on the state of the body, such as after heavy exercise, there is no abnormality even if the user’s heart rate is higher than normal as the conditions for detecting abnormalities are dynamic, construed as changing a determination criterion.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubo to include changing a determination criterion, as taught by Otsuki, in order to “attenuate frequency components that would be noise without attenuating the frequency component indicating heartbeat through the band-pass filtering (Otsuki, Paragraph [0067]).”
Regarding claim 3, Kubo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprising determining an influence level of the predetermined temporary physical state for the person to be measured, and wherein reporting comprises changing the determination criterion to be used in determining whether the person to be measured is in the abnormal state, in accordance with the influence level.
Otsuki teaches wherein the operations further comprising determining an influence level of the predetermined temporary physical state for the person to be measured, and wherein reporting comprises changing the determination criterion to be used in determining whether the person to be measured is in the abnormal state, in accordance with the influence level (Paragraphs [0085], [0088], [0103-0105] and [0140-0141] discuss that based on the state of the body, such as after heavy exercise, there is no abnormality even if the user’s heart rate is higher than normal as the conditions for detecting abnormalities are dynamic, construed as changing a determination criterion and determining an influence level of the temporary physical state.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubo in order to “attenuate frequency components that would be noise without attenuating the frequency component indicating heartbeat through the band-pass filtering (Otsuki, Paragraph [0067]).”
Regarding claim 4, Kubo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state, reporting comprises inhibiting execution of the reporting until the person to be measured is determined not to be in the predetermined temporary physical state.
Otsuki teaches wherein, when the person to be measured is determined to be in the predetermined temporary physical state, reporting comprises inhibiting execution of the reporting until the person to be measured is determined not to be in the predetermined temporary physical state (Paragraphs [0085], [0088], [0103-0105] and [0140-0141] discuss that based on the state of the body, such as after heavy exercise, there is no abnormality even if the user’s heart rate is higher than normal as the conditions for detecting abnormalities are dynamic.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubo in order to “attenuate frequency components that would be noise without attenuating the frequency component indicating heartbeat through the band-pass filtering (Otsuki, Paragraph [0067]).”
Regarding claim 5, Kubo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the person to be measured is in the predetermined temporary physical state based on the biometric information.
Otsuki teaches wherein determining whether the person to be measured is in the predetermined temporary physical state based on the biometric information (Paragraph [0033] discusses the system using movement of the human body, such as a heart rate, construed as a type of biometric information.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubo in order to “attenuate frequency components that would be noise without attenuating the frequency component indicating heartbeat through the band-pass filtering (Otsuki, Paragraph [0067]).”
Regarding claim 6, Kubo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the person to be measured is in the predetermined temporary physical state by using a machine learning model trained through use of the biometric information on a person who is in the predetermined temporary physical state.
Otsuki teaches wherein determining whether the person to be measured is in the predetermined temporary physical state by using a machine learning model trained through use of the biometric information on a person who is in the predetermined temporary physical state (Paragraphs [014-0145] and [0152-0153] discuss using a machine learning model to detect abnormalities and assess the patient’s measurements, including heart rate to determine their state.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubo in order to “accurately classify the state of the living body (Otsuki, Paragraph [0152]).”
Regarding claim 7, Kubo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined temporary physical state is a state after drinking or a state after exercising.
Otsuki teaches wherein the predetermined temporary physical state is a state after exercising (Paragraphs [0068-0069] and [0141] discuss the user being in different states, such as after having done heavy exercise, construed as a predetermined temporary physical state.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubo to include wherein the predetermined temporary physical state is a state after exercising, as taught by Otsuki, in order to “attenuate frequency components that would be noise without attenuating the frequency component indicating heartbeat through the band-pass filtering (Otsuki, Paragraph [0067]).”
2025Attorney Docket No. 317EP.001US01
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
2025Attorney Docket No. 317EP.001US01
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686