DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) submitted October 22, 2025. Claims 1, 6 – 7, and 11 are amended. Claims 8 – 10 and 16 – 17 are cancelled (Claims 3 – 5 and 13 – 15 were previously cancelled). Claims 1 – 2, 6 – 7, and 11 – 12 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 22, 2025 has been entered.
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 – 2, 6 – 7, and 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One
Claims 1 – 2, 6 – 7, and 11 – 12 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite providing an intestinal microbiome analysis result, comprising: generating a plurality of groups based on previously analyzed intestinal microbiome information by grouping a plurality of sample providers having intestinal health-related characteristics determined based on at least one of intestinal microbiome information or medical questionnaire information based on previously analyzed intestinal microbiome information; receiving registration of a kit for collecting a user's sample; deriving a plurality of symptoms related to intestinal health of the user based on the medical questionnaire information; classifying the user into at least one of the plurality of groups based on the user's intestinal microbiome information obtained through an analysis of the user's sample; and providing an intestinal microbiome analysis result providing an intestinal microbiome analysis result including: (i) information about the at least one of the plurality of groups into which the user is classified; (ii) character information representing the at least one of the plurality of groups; and (iii) a match rate between intestinal microbiome information of the at least one of the plurality of groups into which the user is classified and the user's intestinal microbiome information; (iv) the plurality of symptoms and at least one of intestinal microbiomes causing the plurality of symptoms, respectively; (v) an amount of each of the at least one of the intestinal microbiomes; and (vi) statistics on a plurality of bowel movement health levels for the at least one of the plurality of groups into which the user is classified, wherein the character information includes a name expressed in words that infer an intestinal health condition or lifestyle of the plurality of sample providers belonging to the at least one of the plurality of groups, an image representing a body type depending on an age and an eating habit of the plurality of sample providers belonging to the at least one of the plurality of groups, and information regarding the lifestyle, the eating habit, and an defecation activity of the plurality of sample providers belonging to the at least one of the plurality of groups, wherein the plurality of symptoms includes at least one of chronic abdominal distension, chronic abdominal pain, chronic diarrhea, chronic constipation, high body mass index (BMI) (obesity) symptoms or hyperglycemia, and the intestinal microbiome analysis result is provided to the user device information representing an intestinal health condition for each of the plurality of symptoms, wherein the information includes at least one of good stage, normal stage, or poor stage, wherein the amount is displayed, in a graph, in connection with each of the plurality of symptoms, and wherein the statistics on the plurality of bowel movement health levels include statistics on an average number of bowel movements for a preset period time, a shape of stool and satisfaction after defecation.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that “the present disclosure relates to a method and server for providing an intestinal microbiome analysis result” (paragraph 1 of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they provide “a user device with an intestinal microbiome analysis result including information about a group into which a user is classified based on the user’s intestinal microbiome information among a plurality of groups including a plurality of characteristics related to intestinal health” (paragraph 7 of the published specification). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 1: “user device”, “receiving of the registration of the kit includes receiving a digital code displayed on the kit for identification thereof, and the user's sample includes feces of the user”, “emoticon facial expression”
Claim 7: “user device”
Claim 11: “server”, “processor”, “at least one memory for storing a computer program code”, “server”, “user device”, “receiving of the registration of the kit includes receiving a digital code displayed on the kit for identification thereof, and the user's sample includes feces of the user”, “emoticon facial expression”
Claim 12: “server”
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0025] Through the whole document, a part of an operation or function described as being carried out by a terminal or device may be carried out by a server connected to the terminal or device. Likewise, a part of an operation or function described as being carried out by a server may be carried out by a terminal or device connected to the server.
[0029] The components of the intestinal microbiome analysis result providing system illustrated in FIG. 1 are typically connected to each other via a network (not shown). The network refers to a connection structure that enables information exchange between nodes such as devices and servers, and includes LAN (Local Area Network), WAN (Wide Area Network), Internet (WWW: World Wide Web), a wired or wireless data communication network, a telecommunication network, a wired or wireless television network, and the like. Examples of the wireless data communication network may include 3G, 4G, 5G, 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project), LTE (Long Term Evolution), WIMAX (World Interoperability for Microwave Access), Wi-Fi, Bluetooth communication, infrared communication, ultrasonic communication, VLC (Visible Light Communication), LiFi, and the like, but may not be limited thereto.
[0070] An aspect of the present disclosure can be embodied in a storage medium including instruction codes executable by a computer such as a program module executed by the computer. A computer-readable medium can be any usable medium which can be accessed by the computer and includes all volatile/non-volatile and removable/nonremovable media. Further, the computer-readable medium may include all computer storage media. The computer storage medium includes all volatile/non-volatile and removable/non-removable media embodied by a certain method or technology for storing information such as computer-readable instruction code, a data structure, a program module or other data.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2, 6 – 7, and 12, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6 – 11, and 16 – 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apte et al., herein after Apte (U.S. Publication Number 2019/0050534 A1) in view of Warren et al., herein after Warren (U.S. Publication Number 2018/0166165 A1) further in view of Ishihara et al., herein after Ishihara (U.S. Publication Number 2018/0226144 A1) are withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted October 22, 2025.
The rejection of Claim(s) 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apte et al., herein after Apte (U.S. Publication Number 2019/0050534 A1) in view of Warren et al., herein after Warren (U.S. Publication Number 2018/0166165 A1) in view of Ishihara et al., herein after Ishihara (U.S. Publication Number 2018/0226144 A1) further in view of Witteman et al., herein after Witteman (Witteman H, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Wijeysundera H, Exe N, Dickson M, Holtzman L, Kahn V, Zikmund-Fisher B. “Animated Randomness, Avatars, Movement, and Personalization in Risk Graphics”. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(3):e80 URL: https://www.jmir.org/2014/3/e80)
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2895) is withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted October 22, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicants arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant argues amended claim 1 defines that the intestinal microbiome analysis result is yielded based on the collected user's feces, and the collection is further implemented by a display of the digital code. In other words, claim 1, considered as a whole, is directed to a process of analyzing the collected user's feces as a sample and how the sample can be collected, which demonstrates that claim 1 includes limitations amounting significantly more than an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims recite “receiving registration of a kit for collecting a user's sample from a user device” and “wherein the receiving of the registration of the kit includes receiving a digital code displayed on the kit for identification thereof, and the user's sample includes feces of the user”. The claims do not disclose the analysis of the user’s sample, merely that the sample include feces of the user. The Applicant states that claim 1, as a whole, is directed to a process of analyzing the collected user’s feces as a sample and how the sample can be collected, which demonstrates significantly more than an abstract idea. The Examiner submits the present claims recite receiving a registration kit for collecting a user’s feces sample, but fails to disclose the collection and analysis of the sample. The tools used to perform the invention (providing an intestinal microbiome result) amount to no more than a generic computer, which is a general link to execute the abstract idea. The Applicant’s specification states “An aspect of the present disclosure can be embodied in a storage medium including instruction codes executable by a computer such as a program module executed by the computer. A computer-readable medium can be any usable medium which can be accessed by the computer and includes all volatile/non-volatile and removable/nonremovable media. Further, the computer-readable medium may include all computer storage media. The computer storage medium includes all volatile/non-volatile and removable/non-removable media embodied by a certain method or technology for storing information such as computer-readable instruction code, a data structure, a program module or other data.” (paragraph 70 of the published specification). The processor, as used in the recited claims, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
KRISTINE K. RAPILLO
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/KRISTINE K RAPILLO/Examiner, Art Unit 3682