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 action is in response to applicant’s response on April 10, 2026.
Claims 1-4 & 6-7 were previously presented.
Claims 1-4 & 6-7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the applicant’s arguments, on page 5, that the claims are similar to Example 40. Applicant argues that the claims provide a specific technical improvement by “reducing unnecessary data transmission” and improving network efficiency, analogizing it to USPTO Example 40, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed “improvement” is not to the functioning of the computer or the data transmission technology itself, but is merely the intended result of applying the abstract filtering rule. “Reducing unnecessary data transmission” is the direct, inevitable result of any filtering process that elects not to send some data. The claim does not recite a new or improved technical means for data transmission (e.g., a novel network protocol, a more efficient data compression algorithm, or a method to reduce network latency). It merely recites the abstract decision not to transmit. This is a result-oriented limitation that does not confer eligibility. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But the claim’s focus is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”). The analogy to Example 40 is inapposite. In Example 40, the claimed method addressed a problem arising within the realm of computer networking technology—namely, that collecting certain data types (Netflow) could itself hinder network performance. The solution was a specific improvement to the data collection process to solve that technical problem. Here, the problem being solved is not a technical one related to network performance but a subjective one: preventing the transmission of data that a user deems private. The filtering is based on a user’s subjective preference (“non-transmission index”), not on a technical condition of the network or device. Therefore, the instant application is different than the example.
Applicant argues that processing heterogeneous data (GPS, payment, SNS) with a mathematical formula is too complex to be a mental process, citing Examples 37 and 38.
With regard to the applicant’s arguments, on page 6, that Applicant argues that processing heterogeneous data (GPS, payment, SNS) with a mathematical formula is too complex to be a mental process, citing Examples 37 and 38. This argument misapprehends the “mental steps” doctrine. The inquiry is not whether a human could perform the steps with the same speed or scale as a computer, but whether the steps are cognitive in character. The steps of acquiring data, calculating a value, and applying a rule are fundamentally cognitive. Using a computer to automate these steps does not change their abstract nature. See CyberSource Corp. v. Progress Software Corp., 778 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The presence of a specific mathematical formula (LYS(x) := ...) reinforces, rather than negates, the abstract nature of the claim. Mathematical formulas are a quintessential example of an abstract idea. The recitation of “GPS data, electronic payment data, and social networking service (SNS) data” is merely a field-of-use limitation. It specifies the type of information being analyzed but does not change the abstract nature of the analysis itself. The process remains the same regardless of the data’s source or label. It does not transform the process into a concrete, technological one. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to a mental process-type abstract idea, as defined under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and are not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 absent additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
With regard to the applicant’s arguments, on page 7, that Applicant argues that the “standardized handling” of data and the “technical threshold” of the non-transmission index represent a specific, non-generic technical solution. This argument is not persuasive. The claim describes the function to be performed, not a specific, non-generic implementation for performing it. Describing the process as creating a “standardized” value is just another way of saying the algorithm produces a numerical output. This is a characteristic of virtually all data analysis algorithms. The claim does not recite a specific, unconventional data structure or processing technique that enables this “standardized handling” in a way that improves computer functionality. The “non-transmission index” is simply a stored data value representing a user’s preference. The step of comparing a calculated “position value” to this stored threshold value is a basic, conventional computer operation. It does not represent a “technical threshold” that improves the underlying technology; it is merely data used in a conventional conditional logic statement (if value > threshold then...).
With regard to the applicant’s argument, on page 7-8, that Applicant argues that the data sources are not generic because the specification mentions a GPS sensor and service connections, attempting to distinguish from Electric Power Group and draw an analogy to Example 4. This argument fails because the claims, not the specification, define the scope of the invention. The claim recites acquiring “positioning system (GPS) data,” not acquiring data from a GPS sensor. The data could be acquired from a file, a network stream, or manual input. The claim limitations do not require the presence or use of a specific sensor or hardware component. The mere mention of a sensor in the specification does not import that limitation into the claims. The data types (GPS, payment, SNS) are simply inputs to the abstract mathematical analysis. As in Electric Power Group, collecting and analyzing data, even from specific sources, does not confer eligibility if the process operating on that data is itself abstract. The nature of the data does not transform the abstract process. The analogy to Example 4 is misplaced. The claim in Example 4 was directed to an improvement in the functioning of the GPS receiver itself—specifically, improving its signal-acquisition sensitivity. The present claims are not directed to improving a GPS sensor, a payment processing system, or an SNS platform. They are directed to an abstract method of filtering data derived from those sources.
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 1-4 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a system, independent claim 6 is directed toward a method, and independent claim 7 is directed toward a non-transitory storage medium. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 & 6-7 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-4 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1 & 6-7 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
An information processing device comprising: a processor, the processor is configured to:
acquire a data set in which each piece of data constituting the data set includes information regarding a position, and target data to be evaluated is included in the data set; (sending and receiving data between devices is considered extra-solution activity)
estimate, based on the data set, a position value indicating a value related to the target data using an estimation model, defined as a value estimation target, based on evaluation in a predetermined task of each of data sets including mutually different data; (a person can estimate a position using positional data and utilizing pre-set thresholds. This model would be generally linking to the abstract idea as they are mentioned at a high level and thus this limitation can be done in the mind.)
decide whether to transmit the target data to an external device based on a non- transmission index that is set based on evaluation for a predetermined task by a user, wherein the decision whether to transmit the target data to the external device comprises determining whether the position value estimates any item contained in the non- transmission index; (a person can decide whether or not to transmit data & sending and receiving data between devices is considered extra-solution activity.)
for the position value being determined as exceeding an evaluation threshold derived from the data set: (The limitations below are merely calculations which can be done in the mind. )
for the position value being determined as estimating an item contained in the non-transmission index, the target data is not transmitted to the external device and unnecessary data transmission is reduced; (sending and receiving data between devices is considered extra-solution activity)
for the position value being determined as not estimating any item contained in the non-transmission index, transmit the target data to the external device; and (sending and receiving data between devices is considered extra-solution activity)
for the position value being determined as not exceeding the evaluation threshold derived from the data set, the target data is not transmitted to the external device,
wherein the data set comprises positioning system (GPS) data, electric payment data, and social networking service(SNS) data. (sending and receiving data between devices is considered extra-solution activity)
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 6 & 7, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1 & 6-7 recite the additional elements of the computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
An information processing device comprising: a processor, the processor is configured to:…found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
acquire a data set in which each piece of data constituting the data set includes information regarding a position, and target data to be evaluated is included in the data set;…found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation adds insignificant extra solution activity.
estimate, based on the data set, a position value indicating a value related to the target data using an estimation model, defined as a value estimation target, based on evaluation in a predetermined task of each of data sets including mutually different data,;…found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
decide whether to transmit the target data to an external device based on a non- transmission index that is set based on evaluation for a predetermined task by a user, wherein the decision whether to transmit the target data to the external device comprises determining whether the position value estimates any item contained in the non- transmission index…found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
for the position value being determined as estimating an item contained in the non-transmission index, the target data is not transmitted to the external device and unnecessary data transmission is reduced…found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation adds insignificant extra solution activity.
and for the position value being determined as not estimating any item contained in the non-transmission index, transmit the target data to the external device…found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation adds insignificant extra solution activity.
for the position value being determined as not exceeding the evaluation threshold derived from the data set, the target data is not transmitted to the external device, wherein the data set comprises positioning system (GPS) data, electric payment data, and social networking service(SNS) data.…found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation adds insignificant extra solution activity.
An information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising…found in independent claim(s) 6. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute: acquiring a data set in which each piece of data constituting the data set includes information regarding a position…found in independent claim 7. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1 & 6-7 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any 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 in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of An information processing device comprising: a processor, the processor is configured to; estimate, based on the data set, a position value indicating a value related to the target data using a learning model, defined as a value estimation target, based on evaluation in a predetermined task of each of data sets including mutually different data; decide whether to transmit the target data to an external device based on a non- transmission index that is set based on evaluation for a predetermined task by a user, wherein the decision whether to transmit the target data to the external device comprises determining whether the position value estimates any item contained in the non- transmission index; An information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising; A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute; are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because the background of the instant application recites that the processor, which is communicably coupled to the computer readable medium, is conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within the vehicle. Additionally, the remaining elements have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
estimate, based on the data set, a position value indicating a value related to the target data using a learning model, defined as a value estimation target, based on evaluation in a predetermined task of each of data sets including mutually different data,…Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
decide whether to transmit the target data to an external device based on a non- transmission index that is set based on evaluation for a predetermined task by a user, wherein the decision whether to transmit the target data to the external device comprises determining whether the position value estimates any item contained in the non- transmission index…is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
An information processing device comprising: a processor, the processor is configured to:…the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
An information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising…the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute; …the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1 & 6-7 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-4 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-4, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-4 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-4 & 6-7 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that:
Claims 2-3 include limitations on the non-transmission index which has been deemed insignificant extra-solution activity: Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Claim 4 includes acquire external estimation data which has been deemed insignificant extra solution activity via OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MICHAEL W ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-4pm.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Mike Anderson
Supervisor Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights