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
`
`04/3 0/2021
`
`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 04/12/2021.
`III A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) D 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)[:J 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)
`
`1—3 and 5—13 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[I Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1 —3 and 5— 13 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`E) 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)[:| 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). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)[:] Some**
`
`c)D 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) [3 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) [:1 Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OBa and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`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 20210421
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`This is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to communications received on
`
`04/12/2021. Applicant has amended claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8; cancelled claim 4; newly
`
`added claims 10-13; and has left the rest of claims as previously presented. Claims 1-3
`
`and 5-13 are currently pending in the application and are addressed below.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`Applicant’s submission received 04/12/2021 does not include a drawing
`
`amendment thus the drawing objections set forth in the previous Office Action are
`
`maintained.
`
`Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112
`
`rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
`
`Drawings
`
`The drawings are objected to because Figured 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 3
`
`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.
`
`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 1-3 and 5-13 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
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 4
`
`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 sensor for detecting user activity, an user
`
`interface for obtaining device operation information, a memory for storing data and a
`
`display 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.
`
`Regarding dependent claims 2-3 and 5-13, 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. Additionally, the sensors, interface, memory and
`
`display recited in claims 10-13 are still viewed as generic computing devices because
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 5
`
`they are merely used in performing routine pre-solution data gathering and post-solution
`
`data-processing functions.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 04/12/2021 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`In re Drawing Obiections
`
`As noted above, the 04/12/2021 submission received does not include any
`
`amended drawings, thus the drawing objections set forth in the previous Office Action
`
`are maintained.
`
`In re 35 USC 112
`
`The applicant’s claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112
`
`claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
`
`In re 35 USC 101
`
`Applicant argues that the comparison of the level of dementia to a reference
`
`value and categorization of the level integrate the abstract idea into a practical
`
`application. In response it is noted that the comparison is merely an abstract idea in
`
`itself, namely a Mental Process, whereby a calculation that can be performed mentally
`
`occurs. Absent the “information processor” language in the limitation, the limitation is
`
`similarly a mental process as the determining of the level of dementia, and the
`
`categorization is also a mental process. To this end the arguments are held to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 6
`
`unpersuasive since, in the instant case, the applicant’s arguments are drawn to a
`
`mental process that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
`
`Furthermore, with respect to the recitation of sensor, user interface, memory and
`
`display, while these components are not abstract, in the context of the claims they are
`
`held to be no more than generic computer components that perform routine computing
`
`functions, and as such, fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
`
`(see rejection above). Additionally, the specific recitations of claims 10-13 have also
`
`been considered but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to
`
`amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see rejection above).
`
`To this end the applicant’s arguments have been held to be unpersuasive and
`
`the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
`
`In re 35 USC 102 & 103
`
`The applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the
`
`rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 that were set forth in the previous Office
`
`Action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 7
`
`Conclusion
`
`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
`
`extension fee 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 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/067,612
`Art Unit: 3715
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
`