Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
In the Office Action, claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. On page 3 of the office action, the Examiner indicated that, as per step 2A, the claim limitation under its broadcast reasonable interpretation covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” that is judicial exception, and furthermore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “sensors” and the “data processing unit” amount no more than merely using a generic computer.
審查委員認為claim中即便有sensor, processor等元件，並沒有超越一般電腦能做的事，判定發明是抽象概念。
The applicant submits that the amended claim 1 is now directed to a care system and amended claim 11 has been amended to incorporate clarifications that reflect the scope of an automatic care method. According to the amended claim 1, the care system includes a data processing unit, a plurality of sensors and a user interface. Applicant submits that the amended claim 1 provides a solution that is able to train an intelligent model (i.e., the care-taking warning prediction model) by learning the data generated by the sensors and performing a machine-learning method through meaningful additional elements/specific-purpose devices recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions.
答辯說發明為通過學習感測器產生的資料訓練智能模型，其中是通過有意義的額外元件執行機器學習方法。
Further, the sensors of the care system includes two different groups of sensors including a first group of sensors operating at all times and generating a first group of detection data related to a care recipient and a second group of sensors being activated to generate a second group of detection data related to the care recipient when the first group of detection data reaches a first threshold. The technical correlation between the first and second groups of sensors forms the claim limitation that not falls within the subject matter grouping the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim recites the additional elements such as the sensor and the user interface for receiving a warning notification generated by the care recipient that are applied to the care system in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
在此說明系統中的感測器的特殊有意義之處，例如其中有兩組感測器，之間具有關聯性，且分別產生不同型態的資料，加上其中使用者介面，形成claim中的額外元件，以有意義的方式應用在系統中。
Still further, the data generated by the first and second groups of sensors and the timing generating the warning notification are particularly provided to be learned by a machine learning method performed by the data processing unit of the care system so as to establish a warning prediction model. It is appreciated that those data are transformed into the warning prediction model that is provided for the care system to determine whether or not a status of the care recipient satisfies a condition of generating the warning notification. The applicant asserts that additional elements recited in the claim limitation are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
上述兩組感測器產生的數據以及產生警告通知的時間都提供機器學習，這些內容都形成claim中的額外元件，已經足以超越抽象概念。
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims now adequately reflect patent eligible subject matters that incorporate practical integration, whose patentability shall be determined substantially through novelty and non-obviousness analysis. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections is respectfully requested.
因為審查委員這樣想，這裡也用相同的邏輯回應審查委員，因為以上特徵描述通過新穎性與進步性分析後，證明具備實質應用的專利適格性。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言