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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3-8 are 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 3 recites the limitation “the item” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the same examinee” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claims 4-7 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 3.
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 1-15 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. Claims 1-13 are drawn to a device, claim 14 is drawn to a medium, and claim 15 is drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-15 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a health data management device comprising:
a) a processor,
wherein the processor is configured to
1) acquire affiliation information of an output destination of a plurality of health data measured under different measurement conditions and intended-use information of the health data, and
2) control output of the health data for each measurement condition based on the affiliation information and the intended-use information.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) acquire affiliation information of an output destination of a plurality of health data measured under different measurement conditions and intended-use information of the health data, and 2) control output of the health data for each measurement condition based on the affiliation information and the intended-use information. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, people can take in data and determine how to output/relay that data. Independent claims 14-15 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-13 include all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2-5 add additional functional limitations which amount to mathematical concepts in the claims. Additionally, claims 6-13 add additional functional limitations to the claims which amount to and these additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-13 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a processor to perform the claimed steps.
The a) processor in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as determining data from a set of data) such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0107] where there is a general-purpose processor, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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 of using a) a processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention controls output of data utilizing a) a processor, thus the processor is adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-15 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2020/0227160 to Youngblood et al.
As per claim 1, Youngblood et al. teaches a health data management device comprising:
--a processor, (see: 760 of FIG. 1 where there is a processor)
--wherein the processor is configured to
--acquire affiliation information of an output destination of a plurality of health data measured under different measurement conditions and intended-use information of the health data, (see: paragraph [0182] where there are permissions data which are being used to determine who can access a particular set of data and what purposes the data can be accessed. Also see: paragraph [0142] where there is an extension of any data to any data buyer who meets the terms and conditions set out in the permissions. Also see: paragraphs [0062] – [0067] where there are different sensors collecting data. Also see: paragraph [0136] where there is a transmission of this health data to sell this data to data buyers. The affiliation information here for an output destination (the data buyer) is being acquired and it sets out the intended use for the health data and the different measurement conditions (from which sensor/how the data was collected)) and
--control output of the health data for each measurement condition based on the affiliation information and the intended-use information (see: paragraphs [0146] and [0182] where data is collected and accessed. There is control of an output of data for each sensor-collected data based on the permissions (affiliation information) and the intended use information (purpose of using the data)).
As per claim 9, Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination teaches the device of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Gorski further teaches wherein the processor is configured to notify the output destination of the reliability degree of the health data to be output (see: FIG. 6 where there are quality ratings which are being outputted to notify the output destination (buyer) of the degree of reliability of the data).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, Youngblood et al. teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Youngblood et al. further teaches wherein the processor is configured to
--receive a search for the health data from the output destination, (see: 1406 of FIG. 12 where there is reception of a search for health data from an output destination (a user of the networking system)) and
--output the health data specified by the search (see: 1410 of FIG. 12 where there is outputting of the health data to the user specified by the search at least in portion of the data).
As per claim 14, claim 14 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 15, claim 15 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0227160 to Youngblood et al. in view of W.O. 2020/214730 to Gorski.
As per claim 2, Youngblood et al. teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Youngblood et al. further teaches wherein the measurement conditions include at least one of the following items: a measurement date and time; a measurement device; a measurement method; a measurement location; and a qualification of a measurer (see: paragraph [0182] where there is at least measurement location data included in the recorded data).
Youngblood et al. may not further, specifically teach the processor is configured to
2) --determine a reliability degree for the health data from the measurement conditions, and
3) --control the output of the health data according to the reliability degree.
Gorski teaches:
the processor is configured to
2) --determine a reliability degree for the health data from the measurement conditions, (see: paragraphs [0074] and [0075] where there is a determination of the reliability of the data including the quality of the data) and
3) --control the output of the health data according to the reliability degree (see: paragraphs [0082] and [0093] where there is output of an assessment of the quality of the data and also a more accurate output of data. The output of data here is being controlled according to the reliability of the data).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 2) determine a reliability degree for the health data from the measurement conditions and 3) control the output of the health data according to the reliability degree as taught by Gorski in the device as taught by Youngblood et al. with the motivation(s) of providing better quality data (see: paragraph [0058] of Gorski).
As per claim 3, Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination teaches the device of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Gorski further teaches wherein the processor is configured to
--perform weighting on the item included in the measurement conditions based on the affiliation information and the intended-use information, (see: paragraph [0060] where there is a performing of weighting of the user who recorded the data based on user feedback) and
--correct the reliability degree in accordance with the weighted measurement conditions (see: paragraphs [0060] and [0061] where the weighting of the feedback is used to determine the value associated with the data. The score of the data (reliability) here is being corrected based on the feedback information (weighted measurement conditions)).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination teaches the device of claim 3, see discussion of claim 3. Gorski further teaches
--wherein the processor is configured to perform the weighting to a greater extent in a case where the measurer is a person with a specific qualification than in a case where the measurer is unqualified (see: paragraphs [0060] and [0061] where there is a greater extent weighting of a qualified person as their data would receive positive feedback whereas an unqualified person would receive lower feedback. Qualification is broad).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0227160 to Youngblood et al. in view of W.O. 2020/214730 to Gorski as applied to claim 3, and further in view of U.S. 2016/0343025 Shen et al.
As per claim 5, Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination teaches the device of claim 3, see discussion of claim 3. Gorski further teaches wherein the output destination sets a required reliability degree, which is a lower limit of the reliability degree acceptable for the health data to be output (see: paragraphs [0060], [0061], and [0085] where there are ratings which are selectable for the purposes of narrowing a search. The selected ratings are the required reliability degree which sets a lower limit for the search results).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--the processor is configured to
--compare the required reliability degree with the reliability degree of the health data for each measurement condition, and
--determine an output condition for outputting the health data according to a comparison result.
Shen et al. teaches:
--the processor is configured to
--compare the required reliability degree with the reliability degree of the health data for each measurement condition, (see: paragraphs [0002] and [0057] where there is a comparison between the error rate and quality of the data set to the threshold. There is a threshold comparison here which defines what is high quality and what is low quality) and
--determine an output condition for outputting the health data according to a comparison result (see: paragraphs [0002] and [0057] where there is a determination of an output condition of a fee based on the comparison of the quality to the threshold which deems what is high quality and what is low quality).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious have the processor be configured to compare the required reliability degree with the reliability degree of the health data for each measurement condition and determine an output condition for outputting the health data according to a comparison result as taught by Shen et al. in the device as taught by Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination with the motivation(s) of factoring in the quality of the data (see: paragraph [0075] of Shen et al.).
As per claim 6, Youngblood et al., Gorski, and Shen et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Shen et al. further teaches wherein the processor is configured to
--output the health data without changing the output condition in a case where the reliability degree satisfies the required reliability degree, (see: paragraphs [0002] and [0057] where there is outputting of data based on the error rate/quality where the price of the higher quality data is not lowered) and
--output the health data by changing the output condition in a case where the reliability degree does not satisfy the required reliability degree (see: paragraphs [0002] and [0057] where there is outputting of data based on the error rate/quality where the price of the lower quality data is changed/lowered).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, Youngblood et al., Gorski, and Shen et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 6, see discussion of claim 6. Shen et al. further teaches
--wherein the output condition is a fee paid by the output destination to an output source for the output of the health data, (see: paragraphs [0002] and [0057] where there is an output condition of a fee paid by the destination for the data) and
--in a case where the reliability degree does not satisfy the required reliability degree, the fee is changed to a lower price than a normal fee (see: paragraphs [0002] and [0057] where the price is discounted for a lower quality set of data).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0227160 to Youngblood et al. in view of W.O. 2020/214730 to Gorski as applied to claim 2, and further in view of U.S. 2015/0205928 to Cales et al.
As per claim 8, Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination teaches the device of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where there are a plurality of health data for the same examinee, output the health data having the highest reliability degree.
Cales et al. teaches:
--wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where there are a plurality of health data for the same examinee, output the health data having the highest reliability degree (see: paragraphs [0277] and [0281] where there is a processor which outputs a health data having the highest reliability for a particular individual).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where there are a plurality of health data for the same examinee, output the health data having the highest reliability degree as taught by Cales et al. in the device as taught by Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination with the motivation(s) of improving the reliability of the data (see: paragraph [0001] of Cales et al.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0227160 to Youngblood et al. in view of W.O. 2020/214730 to Gorski as applied to claim 2, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0253513 to Aras et al.
As per claim 10, Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination teaches the device of claim 9, see discussion of claim 9. The combination may not further, specifically teach
--wherein the processor is configured to, in a case of outputting a health data group consisting of a plurality of health data, set the lowest reliability degree among those of the plurality of health data as the reliability degree of the health data group.
Aras et al. teaches:
--wherein the processor is configured to, in a case of outputting a health data group consisting of a plurality of health data, set the lowest reliability degree among those of the plurality of health data as the reliability degree of the health data group (see: paragraphs [0021] and [0087] where there is assignment of the lowest confidence/reliability value as the confidence of the group/plurality of confidence/reliability values).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the processor is configured to, in a case of outputting a health data group consisting of a plurality of health data, set the lowest reliability degree among those of the plurality of health data as the reliability degree of the health data group as taught by Aras et al. in the device as taught by Youngblood et al. and Gorski in combination with the motivation(s) of making a determination with higher accuracy (see: paragraph [0026] of Aras et al.) as the worst case scenario is being used.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0227160 to Youngblood et al. in view of U.S. 2021/0248739 to Tomizawa et al.
As per claim 11, Youngblood et al. teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Youngblood et al. further teaches the output condition as the affiliation information and the intended-use information (see: paragraphs [0146] and [0182] where there are permissions (affiliation information) and the intended use information (purpose of using the data)).
Youngblood et al. may not further, specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to
--determine an output range of the health data for each measurement condition based on the output condition, and
--output the health data according to the output range.
Tomizawa et al. teaches:
--determine an output range of the health data for each measurement condition based on the output reason, (see: claim 3 where there is a determination of an output range (specific range) for each measurement condition (characteristic value) based on the output condition (extraction condition)) and
--output the health data according to the output range (see: claim 3 where the data is outputted).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine an output range of the health data for each measurement condition based on the output reason and output the health data according to the output range as taught by Tomizawa et al. in the device as taught by Youngblood et al. with the motivation(s) of taking into account variations in data (see: paragraph [0005] of Tomizawa et al.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0227160 to Youngblood et al. in view of W.O. 2023/196390 to Chen.
As per claim 12, Youngblood et al. teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Youngblood et al. may not further, specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to
--determine a case tendency value, which is a value indicating a tendency of a specific case, from a plurality of examination values included in the health data, and
--in a case where the intended-use information includes information on a required case tendency value, control the output of the health data based on the case tendency value corresponding to the intended-use information.
Chen teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to
--determine a case tendency value, which is a value indicating a tendency of a specific case, from a plurality of examination values included in the health data, (see: paragraphs [0035] and [0168] where there is a determination of a case tendency value of a mean, median, or mode score from a plurality of values) and
--in a case where the intended-use information includes information on a required case tendency value, control the output of the health data based on the case tendency value corresponding to the intended-use information (see: paragraphs [0035] and [0168] where there is a case involving a threshold which controls the output of the data. The threshold being the intended-use information was already taught in the Youngblood et al. reference).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the processor is configured to determine a case tendency value, which is a value indicating a tendency of a specific case, from a plurality of examination values included in the health data and in a case where the intended-use information includes information on a required case tendency value, control the output of the health data based on the case tendency value corresponding to the intended-use information as taught by Chen in the device as taught by Youngblood et al. with the motivation(s) of providing an improved decision-making tool (see: paragraph [] of Chen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights