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 10-12 are new. Claims 1-9 are have been amended. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims, claim 1, 8 and 9, and dependent claim 12 recite a non-contact sensor. However, the instant disclosure does not have support for all non-contact sensors, rather it makes mention of a doppler sensor and a microphone on page 6 of the instant specification. Applicant can amend to one of the specific non-contact sensors, remove the limitation, or point out support for non-contact sensor in the disclosure.
Claims 2-7 and 10-12 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1.
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 1-12 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 and 10-12 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 annon-transitory computer readable medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A | Prong One
Claims 1-7 and 10-12 (Group I) recite a watching system, comprising:
a non-contact sensor (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(h) generally linking);
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 from the non-contact sensor;
determining whether the person to be measured is in an abnormal state based on the biometric information;
determining, when the person to be measured is in an abnormal state, whether the person to be measured is in a predetermined temporary physical state;
reporting, when the person to be measured is determined to be in the abnormal state and determined to not be in the predetermined temporary physical state, that the person to be measured is in the abnormal state; and
restricting the reporting when the person to be measured is determined to be in the abnormal state and 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 and 10-12 (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 restricting the 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, restricting the 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 consuming alcohol or a state after exercising, Claim 10 recites a speaker configured to acoustically output to the person to be measured; and a microphone configured to receive an audio input from the person to be measured (MPEP § 2106.05(h) generally linking); Claim 11 recites wherein the reporting comprises transmitting a message indicating that the person to be measured is in the abnormal state to a watching server, and Claim 12 recites creating a first learning data by adding a first label indicating a usual state to a non-contact sensor data obtained from a person who has been monitored after not exercising and not consuming alcohol; creating a second learning data by adding a second label indicating a state after exercising to a non-contact sensor data obtained from a person who has been monitored after exercising; creating a third learning data by adding a third label indicating a state after consuming alcohol to a non-contact sensor data obtained from a person who has been monitored after consuming alcohol; and training the machine learning model using the first learning data, second learning data, and third learning data, 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 1-12 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 and other machinery (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); and
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of sensors, microphone and speakers, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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 and 10-12 include other limitations, but the additional elements (a speaker, microphone) do not result in a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
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 1-12 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free from Prior Art
The closes prior art of record includes:
Kubo (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0140231 A1) discloses using biometric information of a user to determine if they are in an abnormal state and reporting it.
Otsuki (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0142728 A1) discloses determining if the user is in a predetermined temporary physical state, and restricting the reporting.
Kogure (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0137462 A1) discloses using a microphone, construed as a non-contact sensor, to collect biological data of a user, including heart rate and respiration rate data.
However, the prior art of record, fails to disclose the combination of limitations found in independent claims 1, 8 and 9. Claims 2-7 and 10-12 are free from prior art as they depend from claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered,
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The previous Step 1 rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 9.
Regarding claims 1-9, Applicant asserts that “the claimed invention is a technical solution to a technical problem and therefore patent eligible (Remarks, page 7).” Examiner maintains that the devices themselves are not improved as a result of the claimed invention. Deciding when to report a user’s state based on certain conditions to avoid false reporting is not a technical problem. The improvement, if any, resulting from the claim is to the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues that “the claims are similar to the patent eligible claims in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. (Federal Circuit 2020)” and that both of the “inventions improve the accuracy of physiological monitoring (Remarks, page 8).” The claims in CardioNet improved the device itself, whereas here, the improvement, if any, is to the abstract idea.
Regarding the physical structures claimed, none of the devices themselves are improved as a result of the claimed invention. They are merely being used to implement the abstract idea (sensor being used to gather biometric data) or generally link it to a particular environment. There is no improvement to the sensor itself, as it is doing what it is supposed to do (sensing heartrate/respiration rate).
The claims are categorized as being certain methods of organizing human activity and therefore, it is irrelevant whether they can be performed with a pen and paper.
Examiner maintains that the newly added claims 11 and 12 simply further limit the recited abstract idea. Claim 10 recites additional elements of a speaker and a microphone, but neither of these are improved as a result of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
The prior art rejection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights