UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`16/067,612
`
`07/01/2018
`
`Yoshihiro MATSUMURA
`
`NIIPP0224WOUS
`
`5521
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`FLETCHER JERRY-DARYL
`
`ART UNIT
`3715
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/04/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/067,612
`Examiner
`JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER
`
`Applicant(s)
`MATSUMURA etal.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3715
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 07/01/2018.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) Bis/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1_—9 is/are rejected.
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 07/01/2018 is/are: a)[:] accepted or b). objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:i All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`SD Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20210130
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Drawings
`
`The drawings are objected to because Figures 10-12 are improperly shaded.
`
`Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to
`
`the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement
`
`drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version
`
`of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an
`
`amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be
`
`canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and
`
`where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes
`
`made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency.
`
`Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the
`
`remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application
`
`must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet”
`
`pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the
`
`applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office
`
`action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`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 2 and 3 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.
`
`The last two lines of claim 2 are held to be indefinite because it is unclear which
`
`“level of dementia” is being referred to in the two instances it is recited, since “a level of
`
`dementia” is mentioned twice in the claim at ll. 4-5.
`
`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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining a
`
`level of dementia of a user.
`
`This limitation of determining a level of dementia, as drafted, is a system that,
`
`under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the
`
`mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting
`
`“an information processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation from
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 4
`
`practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language,
`
`“determining a level of dementia” encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and
`
`paper, using stored user data to determine a level of dementia for the user. If a claim
`
`limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
`
`limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls
`
`within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite
`
`an abstract idea.
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular,
`
`the claim recites the additional elements of a detector for detecting user activity, an
`
`obtainment unit for obtaining device operation information, a storage unit for storing
`
`data and a presentation unit for presenting data. All of these additional elements are
`
`claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic
`
`computer devices. These additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on
`
`practicing the abstract idea, thus the claim is held to be directed to the abstract idea.
`
`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 the
`
`integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements
`
`amount to no more than generic computing devices that are being used to perform
`
`routine computing functions. Specifically, the detection, transmission, storage and
`
`presentation of data are all indisputably well-known, routine and conventional computing
`
`functions. Therefore, these additional elements either alone or in combination, do not
`
`significantly add to the abstract idea, and the claims are held to be patent ineligible.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding dependent claims 2-9, they are drawn to data processing, data
`
`transmission and data presentation, which have been addressed above, and fail to
`
`integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fail to amount to significantly
`
`more than the judicial exception.
`
`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 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)(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.
`
`Claims 1, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
`
`US 2009/0256710 (Duckert).
`
`In re Claims 1 & 9
`
`Duckert teaches a dementia symptom detection system and computer-readable
`
`medium with instructions comprising (par. 0037):
`
`a detector which detects an activity amount of a user (Abstract);
`
`an obtainment unit which obtains device operation information of the user
`
`(Abstract);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 6
`
`a storage which stores a history of the activity amount and a history of the device
`
`operation information (par. 0030);
`
`an information processor which determines a level of dementia of the user (par.
`
`0030: decline in cognitive ability inherently teaches at least two different levels of
`
`cognitive ability) based on:
`
`(i) a reference value for an index corresponding to behavioral and psychological
`
`symptoms of dementia (par. 0030: baseline), and
`
`(ii) a personal value of the user for the index, the reference value being
`
`determined based on at least one of the history of the activity amount stored in the
`
`storage and the history of the device operation information stored in the storage, the
`
`personal value being determined based on at least one of the activity amount of the
`
`user detected and the device operation information of the user obtained (par. 0030:
`
`comparison of new values to stored baseline value).
`
`a presentation unit which presents the determined level of dementia of the user
`
`(par. 0030).
`
`In re Claim 7
`
`Duckert further teaches wherein the storage stores history of the activity amount
`
`of the user and the history of the device operation information of the user, and the
`
`reference value is determined based on the history of the activity amount of the user
`
`stored in the storage and the history of the device operation information of the user
`
`stored in the storage (par. 0030).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 7
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckert
`
`as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0095193 (Shin).
`
`In re Claims 2-3
`
`Duckert teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection above) but fails to
`
`specifically teach the claimed time periods or warning.
`
`Shin teaches a system for recognizing dementia wherein different time spans are
`
`used for collecting data and determining a level of dementia (par. 0015-0016) and
`
`further the use of different modes of presentation based on the level (par. 0044),
`
`wherein a warning is provided based on the level and time span (par. 0044).
`
`It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the
`
`effective filing date of the invention, to have supplemented Duckert with the teachings of
`
`different time spans and notifications and warnings, as taught by Shin, to have allowed
`
`the system of Duckert to use different time spans and provide different modes of output,
`
`in order to yield the predictable result of providing output of a user’s level of dementia
`
`during different periods of time such as time of day. Furthermore, it would also have
`
`been obvious to have used the length of time to provide a warning, since it would allow
`
`a user or caretaker to get an instant alert when a threshold condition was exceeded.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 8
`
`Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckert
`
`as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0125409 (Tahara).
`
`In re Claims 5-6
`
`Duckert teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection above) and further
`
`teaches the storage device storing a determination result of the level of dementia of a
`
`patient (par. 0030) but fails to specifically teach the claimed server.
`
`Tahara teaches a system for detecting and preventing dementia wherein a server
`
`device is used and is accessible by an external device (Fig. 1; par. 0105, 0125-0126).
`
`It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the
`
`effective filing date of the invention, to have supplemented Duckert with the server of
`
`Tahara in order to allow the use and benefits of a distributed computer network.
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckert as
`
`applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0095459 (Tran).
`
`In re Claim 8
`
`Duckert teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection above) but fails to
`
`specifically teach another user.
`
`Tran teaches a health monitoring system wherein values for another, healthy
`
`user are store and used as a baseline for comparative analysis (par. 0191).
`
`It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the
`
`effective filing date of the invention, to have supplemented Duckert with the teachings of
`
`Tran in order to yield the predictable result of providing a user with an analysis based on
`
`other healthy users.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 9
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-5054. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday (7-3).
`
`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, Sean Hunter can be reached on 571-270-7791. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private
`
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access
`
`to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-
`
`272-1000.
`
`/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
`
`