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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for priority to the following application(s):
* 19212677 filed 20 May 2025
* PCT/JP2024/20991 filed 10 June 2024
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on the following date(s) is/are entered and considered by Examiner:
* 20 May 2025
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: detection unit, calculation unit, and estimation unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For purposes of applying prior art, Examiner interprets these limitations to recite a computer (see a computer as recited in claim 6 for performing these functionalities).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing system comprising:
a detection unit that analyzes a video image capturing a user and detects a degree of an attribute of the user;
a calculation unit that calculates a second variation degree of a first variation degree related to the degree of the attribute in the video image; and
an estimation unit that estimates a mental state of the user based at least on the second variation degree.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer invoked with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the highlighted steps may be practically performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 2-5 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
a detection unit;
a calculation unit; and
an estimation unit.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
The units amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 5 reciting machine learning model, additional limitation(s) which amount(s) to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
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 functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims.
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 functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 6 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bantilan (20200185096).
Claim 1: Bantilan discloses:
An information processing system (Figure 1 illustrating a computer system, Abstract illustrating processing data) comprising:
a detection unit that analyzes a video image capturing a user (page 14 paragraph 0210 illustrating a video of the patient) and detects a degree of an attribute of the user (page 14 paragraph 0210 illustrating detecting the client’s activity metric [considered to be a form of attribute”]);
a calculation unit that calculates a second variation degree (page 6 paragraph 0233 illustrating a variance) of a first variation degree related to the degree of the attribute in the video image (page 6 paragraph 0233 illustrating a standard deviation of the activity metric); and
an estimation unit that estimates a mental state of the user based at least on the second variation degree (page 20 paragraph 0292 illustrating determining the patient’s mental status).
Claim 2: Bantilan discloses:
The information processing system according to claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Bantilan further discloses:
wherein the detection unit detects the degree of the attribute for each interval of predetermined length (page 16 paragraph 0242 illustrating determining activity for a plurality of time intervals) .
Claim 3: Bantilan discloses:
The information processing system according to claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Bantilan further discloses:
wherein the first variation degree and the second variation degree are represented by standard deviation (page 16 paragraph 0233 illustrating standard deviations of the deviation and variance).
Claim 4: Bantilan discloses:
The information processing system according to claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Bantilan further discloses:
wherein the estimation unit estimates the mental state based on the second variation degree and at least one of the first variation degree or the degree of the attribute (page 20 paragraph 0292 illustrating determining the patient’s mental status).
Claim 5: Bantilan discloses:
The information processing system according to claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Bantilan further discloses:
wherein the estimation unit estimates the mental state by inputting at least the second variation degree into a learning model created by machine learning that uses at least the second variation degree and the mental state as training data (page 13 paragraph 0193 illustrating machine learning used to estimate the user’s activity level and determine the mental state therefrom).
Claim(s) 6 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Orbach (20080214903) discloses tracking a patient’s motion to determine the mental state thereof (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Jain (11127506) discloses monitoring a patient’s movement to determine a diagnosis (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. 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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685 /KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights