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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the correspondence received through June 4, 2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted June 4, 2025 and its contents have been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,400,758 B2 (the ’758 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of the ’758 patent disclose the features of claims 1-15 of the instant application.
Compare, e.g., claims 1 of the instant application and the ’758 patent:
Claim 1 of the Instant Application
1. An information processing device comprising:
a controller configured to determine whether an assisted person has an abnormal behavior of a dementia factor based on (1) an information on a dementia level of the assisted person and (2) at least one of an environmental information, an excretion information, and a sleep information of the assisted person, and
an interface configured to output a support information to support the assisted person by a caregiver based on the determination result of the controller and a sensor information from outside, the support information including information how the caregiver should take an action to the assisted person in a care situation,
wherein the interface is configured to output the support information to a care device, the interface controls the care device to provide assistance to the assisted person based on the outputted support information, and the interface is configured to activate or deactivate the care device based on the outputted support information.
Claim 1 of the ’758 Patent
1. An information processing device comprising:
a controller configured to determine whether a behavior of an assisted person is an abnormal behavior of a dementia factor based on (1) an information on a dementia level of the assisted person and (2) at least one of an environmental information, an excretion information, and a sleep information of the assisted person, and
a support information output unit configured to output a support information to support an assistance of the assisted person by a caregiver based on the determination result of the controller and a sensor information that is a sensing result about the assisted person or the caregiver assisting the assisted person, the support information including information how the caregiver should take an action to the assisted person in a care situation,
wherein
the support information output unit outputs the support in formation to care device,
the information processing device controls the care device to provide assistance to the assisted person based on the outputted support information, and
the control of the care device comprises adjusting a position of the care device based on a sensing result of the sensor information.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as required by the Alice test as discussed below.
Step 1
Claims 1-15 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A
Claims 1-15 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites features to determine whether an assisted person has an abnormal behavior of a dementia factor based on (1) an information on a dementia level of the assisted person and (2) at least one of an environmental information, an excretion information, and a sleep information of the assisted person, and a support information to support the assisted person by a caregiver based on the determination result and a sensor information from outside, the support information including information how the caregiver should take an action to the assisted person in a care situation. Claim 7 recites similar features as claim 1. Claims 2-6 and 8-15 further specify features of the identified abstract ideas or characteristics of the data used thereby.
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as mental processes—such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)—because the claimed features identified above are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as certain methods of organizing human activity—such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)—because the claim features identified above manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching and following rules or instructions.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-15 recite abstract ideas.
Prong two of the Step 2A requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Further, “integration into a practical application” uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, such as considerations discussed in M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a)-(h).
The claims recite the following additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a controller, an interface, a care device, and outputting support information, and controlling the care device to activate or deactivate the care device. Claim 7 recites similar features as claim 1. Several dependent claims specify other types of information to output.
The identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
First, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
The additional computer elements identified above—the controller, an interface, a care device—are recited at a high level of generality. Inclusion of these elements amounts to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f). The use of conventional computer elements to output information (e.g., by activating a display of a care device to provide a recommendation) is the insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g). To the extent that the claims transform data, the mere manipulation of data is not a transformation. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(c). Inclusion of the computing system in the claims amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Second, evaluating the claim 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. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide an implementation of the identified abstract ideas on a computer system in the general field of use of recommending healthcare actions. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
Thus, claims 1-15 recite mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity without including additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination. Additional features of these analyses are discussed below.
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, these additional computer elements also provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to output information (e.g., by activating a display of a care device to provide a recommendation) is the well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., the Internet, and does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the identified abstract ideas. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Thus, claims 1-15, taken individually and as an ordered combination of elements, are not directed to eligible subject matter since they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Statement Regarding the Prior Art
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a controller configured to determine whether an assisted person has an abnormal behavior of a dementia factor based on (1) an information on a dementia level of the assisted person and (2) at least one of an environmental information, an excretion information, and a sleep information of the assisted person, and an interface configured to output a support information to support the assisted person by a caregiver based on the determination result of the controller and a sensor information from outside, the support information including information how the caregiver should take an action to the assisted person in a care situation, wherein the interface is configured to output the support information to a care device, the interface controls the care device to provide assistance to the assisted person based on the outputted support information. Claim 7 recites similar features as claim 1.
The relevance of Cook et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0314255 A1), Vleugels (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0135319 A1), and Haire et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0095758 A1) to the claims is presented in the prosecution history of the parent application.
Connor (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0347491 A1) (smart watch and food-imaging member for monitoring food consumption) and Mathkunti et al. (“Machine learning techniques to identify dementia.” SN Computer Science 1.3 (2020): 118.) have been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to healthcare assistance systems.
The closest art of record, including the references discussed above, each fail to teach, suggest, or render obvious each and every element of the claims as presently arranged in the claims. Further, based on the evidence of record, it appears as though one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would not look to combine these references, or the closest art of record, to arrive at the present claims, without using impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Tokarczyk, whose telephone number is 571-272-9594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday between 6:00 AM and 4:00 PM 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, Mamon Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B TOKARCZYK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights