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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 discloses “the processor determines whether or not a user is bored with the activity assuming that the user is not bored although the goal has not been achieved if an application related to the goal is used.” It is unclear what is considered “an application related to the goal” (e.g. is it the same application as the application log of claim 9?, is it the application with the achievement data being collected?, etc.). The support for claim 10 of the published paragraph 35 as disclosed by the Applicant is a duplicate of the claim language without further clarification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0345078 A1 to Blahnik et al. (Blahnik) and US 6,632,174 B1 to Breznitz.
As to claim 1, Blahnik discloses an activity continuation support device (100) comprising: a memory (104) (Fig. 1, Par. 21); and a processor (102) coupled to the memory (104) (Fig. 1, Par. 21) and configured to: detect user’s performance with certain activity based on a history (e.g. previous week) of an achievement status of a certain person for a goal for the activity (Par. 56); and update the goal based on the history in a case where the user’s performance is detected (Par. 56, e.g., a daily goal for a type of activity may be automatically updated based on the user's performance relative to the daily goal during the previous week).
Blahnik does not expressly disclose user’s performance induces boredom.
Breznitz discloses the user’s performance induces boredom (e.g. too many errors in user’s performance may indicate that the goal is too hard thereby induces boredom) (Col. 5, lines 1-13, see also claim 12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Blahnik with the teaching of Breznitz to provide an improved training exercise thereby improve user’s experience as suggested by Breznitz (Col. 3, lines 51-54).
As to claim 6, Blahnik in view of Breznitz teaches a method of the device of claim 1 above. The limitation of claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 1.
As to claim 2, Blahnik as modified discloses the processor (Blahnik’s 102, Fig. 1, Par. 21; Breznitz’s Col. 2, lines 59-61) is configured to detect the boredom in a case where non-achievement of the goal in the history continues for a predetermined number of times or more (Breznitz’s Col. 5, lines 1-13, e.g. too many errors in user’s performance may indicate that the goal is too hard thereby induces boredom). See claim 1 motivation above.
As to claim 5, Blahnik discloses the processor is further configured to perform output for proposing a goal updated (Par. 56).
As to claim 8, Blahnik discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the activity continuation support method of claim 6 (Par. 109).
As to claim 9, Blahnik as modified discloses the processor further detects the boredom based on a history of an application log of an information terminal related to the goal (Blahnik’s Par. 56, Breznitz’s Col. 5, lines 1-13). See claim 1 motivation above.
As to claim 10, Blahnik as modified discloses the processor determines whether or not a user is bored with the activity assuming that the user is not bored although the goal has not been achieved if an application related to the goal is used (Breznitz’s Col. 5, lines 1-13). See claim 1 motivation above.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0345078 A1 to Blahnik et al. (Blahnik) and US 6,632,174 B1 to Breznitz; in view of US 2021/0201242 A1 to Niwai et al. (Niwai).
As to claim 3, Blahnik discloses an activity continuation support device (100) comprising: a memory (104) (Fig. 1, Par. 21); and a processor (102) coupled to the memory (104) (Fig. 1, Par. 21) and configured to: detect user’s performance with certain activity based on a history (e.g. previous week) of an achievement status of a certain person for a goal for the activity (Par. 56); and update the goal based on the history in a case where the user’s performance is detected (Par. 56, e.g., a daily goal for a type of activity may be automatically updated based on the user's performance relative to the daily goal during the previous week).
Blahnik does not expressly disclose user’s performance induces boredom, and update the goal based on a goal achieved by another person different from the certain person.
Breznitz discloses the user’s performance induces boredom (e.g. too many errors in user’s performance may indicate that the goal is too hard thereby induces boredom) (Col. 5, lines 1-13).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Blahnik with the teaching of Breznitz to provide an improved training exercise thereby improve user’s experience as suggested by Breznitz (Col. 3, lines 51-54).
Niwai discloses update the goal based on a goal achieved by another person different from the certain person (Fig. 3, Par. 90, e.g. selecting goal based on goal achieved by another person having the same job category or same behavior tendency).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Blahnik with the teaching of Niwai to provide an ideal and realistic improvement as suggested by Niwai (Par. 89).
As to claim 4, Blahnik as modified discloses the another person is a person having an attribute similar to an attribute of the certain person in a predetermined standard (Fig. 3, Par. 90, e.g. selecting goal based on goal achieved by another person having the same job category or same behavior tendency). See claim 3 motivation above.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0345078 A1 to Blahnik et al. (Blahnik) and US 6,632,174 B1 to Breznitz; in view of US 2025/0363912 A1 to Shelly et al. (Shelly).
As to claim 11, Blahnik does not expressly disclose when the boredom is detected, a new updated goal estimated to be highly likely to be achievable based on the goal set and the history of the goal achievement information is calculated.
Shelly discloses when failure to complete the steps or errors made (e.g. boredom) is detected, a new updated goal estimated to be highly likely to be achievable based on the goal set and the history of the goal achievement information is calculated (Fig. 2, Par. 34).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Blahnik with the teaching of Shelly so as to not overwhelm the user as suggested by Shelly (Par. 34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Blahnik and Breznitz do not teach “detect boredom with certain activity based on a history of achievement status of a certain person for a goal for the activity” since “Blahnik does not teach a system or device capable of distinguishing a lack of physical capability from an emotional or behavioral state of "boredom”, and “Breznitz is silent in evaluating a multi-day timeline or history of an achievement status (such as a multi-day walking tracker) to sense a trajectory of emotional detachment”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., evaluating a multi-day timeline or history of an achievement status (such as a multi-day walking tracker) to sense a trajectory of emotional detachment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Blahnik teaches the goal values can be determined based on the user's progress (e.g. achievement status) over a certain period of time and/or the training level selected by the user (Par. 56), and Breznitz teaches too many errors in user’s performance may indicate that the goal is too hard thereby induces boredom (Col. 5, lines 1-13, see also claim 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 5,667,459 to Su teaches an exercise goal is updated as a result of the user's previous performance.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA whose telephone number is (571)270-7361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 8:30AM to 4:00PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights