DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 .
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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2025 has been entered.
This action is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/03/2025.
Claims 1, 4, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 remain pending in this application.
Foreign Priority
The Examiner/office acknowledges that the applicant claims foreign priority to the date 03/27/2019.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-9 in the previous office action have been maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-9 in the previous office action are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
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 1-8 are directed towards an information processing device and claim 9 is directed towards a program, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-9, under Step 2A claims 1-9 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to claims 1-9, the independent claims (claims 1 and 9) are directed to managing user’s associated information (e.g. extracts descriptions used by users; extracts descriptions of users sell or taste). These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions. The managing personal behavior is entered into when the user description activities are collected. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – processor, memory, database, device, unit, program, computer, computer readable medium, servers to perform the claim steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of providing and processing information at 0025) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The independent claims are additionally directed to claim elements such as a processor, memory, database, device, unit, program, computer, computer readable medium, servers. When considered individually, the processor, memory, database, device, unit, program, computer, computer readable medium, servers claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements.
Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at ([0037]) “The contents of the registered description DB registered in this manner may be disclosed to the public as, for example, information on a smell, or may be used as reference information when an entity that manufactures a commodity such as a perfume or smell oil manufactures a new smell or engages in marketing.” [0043] “The extraction unit 12 may perform extraction using a threshold corresponding to a user attribute as a threshold used when extracting the frequency description specifically, the threshold Th exemplified in FIG. 7 may be increased for teenage women who are considered to be sensitive to fashionable descriptions,” ([0047]) The present invention may also be provided as a program executed in the information processing device 10. Such a program may be provided on a recording medium such as an optical disk, or may be downloaded to a computer via a network such as the Internet, to be installed.”
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
Dependent claims 2-8 directed to managing user’s associated information. This process is similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Reasons for Removing the Prior Art Rejection
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as to claims 1-9 are removed in light of Applicant's claims and remarks of 09/03/2025, which are deemed persuasive as to independent claim 1, 4, and 9. The reasons for withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found at the following claim limitations of 09/03/2025 at claims 1 and 9 as follows:
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising: a processor; and a memory operably connected to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain appearance histories of descriptions used by plural users from SNS servers via a network,
extract a new description candidate having an appearance frequency that exceeds a threshold for a first time within a predetermined time period, the descriptions having an appearance frequency that does not exceed the threshold not being extracted as new description candidates, based on the appearance histories, the new description candidate being a candidate to be added to a database that stores (i) registered descriptions of smells or tastes corresponding to identification information of objects and (ii) pre-registered conventional descriptions that have been used conventionally for the smells or tastes,
transmit the extracted new description candidate to a plurality of input devices located at physical locations where users experience actual smell or taste of the objects,
present, via the input devices, both the registered conventional descriptions and the extracted new description candidate to plural users while the users experience a smell or taste of a designated object at the physical locations,
receive selection data having been physically selected on the plurality of input devices indicating which candidate descriptions were selected by the users as corresponding to the smell or taste; and
register the new description candidate in the database as a registered description corresponding to the smell or taste of the designated object when a selection frequency condition is satisfied, wherein
the selection frequency condition is based on how often the new description candidate is selected by the plural users as corresponding to the smell or taste.
Applicant’s Remarks of 09/03/2025 at pg. 9-11 as follows:
“A. Tompkins Does Not Teach Temporal Threshold Detection for First-Time
Occurrence
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 9) now recites that the processor is configured to "extract a new description candidate having an appearance frequency that exceeds a thresh time within a predetermined time period, the descriptions having an appearance frequency that does not exceed the threshold not being extracted as new description candidates."
Tompkins teaches intensity values and thresholds for wine characteristics, stating that "the deviation is greater than a predetermined deviation threshold" (1 [0242]). However, Tompkins is entirely concerned with static intensity values of existing wine descriptors like "acidity, alcohol, sugar, tannins" (1 [0083]). Tompkins never teaches monitoring when a descriptor crosses a threshold for the first time within a time period. The Tompkins system works with pre-established descriptors that already exist in the database, not with detecting emerging language that crosses a threshold for the first time.
For at least this reason, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
B. Tompkins Does Not Teach Physical Locations Where Users Experience
Actual Sensory Stimuli
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 9) recites "transmit the extracted new description candidate via the network to a plurality of input devices located at physical locations where users experience actual smell or taste of the objects" and "receive selection data having been physically selected on the plurality of input devices."
Tompkins teaches digital devices and wine ranking systems (1 [0081]) where users
provide preferences based on past experiences. However, Tompkins describes users providing information "regarding a user's wine preferences" based on "past wine consumption" (1 [0082]). Nowhere does Tompkins teach input devices located at physical locations where users are currently experiencing the actual smell or taste while making selections. The Tompkins system is retrospective, relying on users' memories of past wines, not real-time sensory validation at physical locations.
For this additional reason, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
C. Tompkins Does Not Teach Presenting Both Conventional and New
Description Candidates
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 9) recites "present, via the input devices, both the
registered conventional descriptions and the extracted new description candidate to plural users as candidate descriptions while the users experience a smell or taste."
Tompkins teaches using established wine descriptors with intensity values (1 [0083]) but never teaches a dual-tier system presenting both conventional pre-registered descriptions and newly extracted candidate descriptions simultaneously. The Tompkins system works with a single tier of established descriptors in the wine database. There is no concept in Tompkins of presenting users with both conventional descriptions that have been historically used and new candidate descriptions that are being evaluated for potential addition to the database.
For this additional reason, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
D. Robberechts Also Fails to Cure These Deficiencies
Robberechts, which is relied upon only to teach how often something is selected by
users, also fails to teach the above-discussed features because Robberechts is directed to recipe creation using pre-existing ingredients (1 [0032]) rather than detecting emerging descriptive terminology or validating new language at physical sensory locations.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
This applies to independent claim 9 as this claim includes the same feature of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 09/03/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 6-9 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
obtain appearance histories of descriptions used by plural users,
extract a new description candidate having an appearance frequency that exceeds a threshold for a first time within a predetermined time period, the descriptions having an appearance frequency that does not exceed the threshold not being extracted as new description candidates, based on the appearance histories, the new description candidate being a candidate to be added to a database that stores (i) registered descriptions of smells or tastes corresponding to identification information of objects and (ii) pre-registered conventional descriptions that have been used conventionally for the smells or tastes,
transmit the extracted new description candidate located at physical locations where users experience actual smell or taste of the objects,
present both the registered conventional descriptions and the extracted new description candidate to plural users while the users experience a smell or taste of a designated object at the physical locations,
receive selection data having been physically selected indicating which candidate descriptions were selected by the users as corresponding to the smell or taste; and
register the new description candidate -as a registered description corresponding to the smell or taste of the designated object when a selection frequency condition is satisfied, wherein
the selection frequency condition is based on how often the new description candidate is selected by the plural users as corresponding to the smell or taste.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing user’s associated information, which constitutes methods related to managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The database is comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the argument that “This temporal analysis constitutes a practical application that provides a concrete technical improvement to sensory information databases” Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the argument of:
“The requirement for physical presence, actual sensory experience, and physical device interaction transforms any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The system necessarily operates in the physical world where users must travel to specific locations, experience real sensory stimuli, and physically interact with input devices. This represents a technological solution that bridges the gap between subjective sensory experiences and objective database terminology through coordinated physical and digital processes.”
seems to describe a “particular way” of managing user’s associated information. Furthermore, the argument “The system necessarily operates in the physical world where users must travel to specific locations, experience real sensory stimuli, and physically interact with input devices” the Applicant is admitting that the application is directed to improving the user’s experience and not the system software or any type of computer or structure.
The Applicant is basically relying on the system elements as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those system elements aren't really utilized in any particular manner, and the specification indicates that at 0030 " registered description DB, in addition to a general description that has been conventionally used as a description corresponding to a smell, there is added a description that is newly registered by the registration unit 14 as a description corresponding to a smell. ", which indicates the lack of particularity in the application to the technological environment. The citation is a strong indicator that the technical application is NOT particular, and furthermore the claim invention does not “improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.” or “an improvement to another technology or technical field.
Additionally, Examiner finds the pending claims are similar to the ineligible subject matter disclosed in claim 2 of Example 47. Specifically, the Step 2A- Prong Two and Step 2B analysis of claim 2 of Example 47 states, in part, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The computer/database/server/device are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of a temporal threshold detection in the claim merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “SNS servers, database, input devices” limits the identified judicial exceptions “extracting a new description candidate whose frequency of appearance exceeds a threshold for a first time within a predetermined time period, the descriptions having an appearance frequency that does not exceed the threshold not being extracted as new description candidates, based on the appearance histories, the new description candidate being a candidate to be added to a database that stores (i) registered descriptions of smells or tastes corresponding to identification information of objects and (ii) pre-registered conventional descriptions that have been used conventionally for the smells or tastes; transmit the extracted new description candidate to a plurality of input devices located at physical locations where users experience actual smell or taste of the objects;” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (description threshold using database) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims, thus the use of the description threshold using database simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Examiner finds Applicant has failed to adequately point out what technological process in the claimed invention has improved. Using a database to adjust and managing of description activities, is considered an improvement to an existing business process and not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technological field.
Lastly, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which implementing services on behalf of a provider will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Axelsson et al., U.S. Pub. 20170148084, (discussing the tracking of consumer’s tasting preferences).
Dillon et al., W.O. Pub. 2014126607, (discussing the providing of recommendations based on user’s taste profiles).
Carpenter et al., Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage, https://people.duke.edu/~moorman/Marketing-Strategy-Seminar-2015/Session%205/Carpenter%20and%20Nakamoto.pdf, Journal of Marketing research, 1989 (discussing the providing of marketing based on user’s taste profiles).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624