DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination filed January 30, 2026 and amendment field January 16, 2026. Applicant’s January 16th amendment amended claims 1, 12, 18, 20 and canceled claims 5, 13-17, 19. Currently claims 1-4, 6-12, 18, 20 and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 12, 18, 20 are the independent claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 18, 20 and 21 in the previous office is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. using a camera, can predict purchase expectation degree with respect to the design of a based-on sensitivity information; Specification: Paragraphs 30, 40, 49; Remarks: Pages 8-10).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims integrate the claims into to a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – marketing analysis/modeling – in this case calculating, updating and displaying purchase expectation degree (purchase probability) of a product design (design of an object) based on customer (evaluator) purchase behavior (Claims 1 and 18) OR generating a ‘learned’ model of purchase expectation degree with respect to a (product, package) design (Claims 12 and 20) as well as a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind or via pen and paper (see discussion below). While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process calculating a purchase expectation degree (purchase probability) of a product package design (design of an object) based on customer (evaluator) purchase behavior OR modeling purchase expectation degree with response to a design (i.e. marketing analysis/modeling; analyzing the impact of a product’s design on sales) they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Examiner notes that only claim 1 recites a camera that tracks gaze of an evaluator (person) to a design of an object.
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of a camera that tracks gaze of an evaluator may be performed in the human mind using observation of data (insignificant pre-solution activity). The step of acquires attribute information may be performed in the human mind using observation of data (insignificant pre-solution activity). The step of calculates a purchase expectation degree may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement of data (mathematical operation/calculation). The step of predict a purchase expectation degree with respect to the design may be performed by the human mind via evaluation and judgement (also a mathematical operation). The step of acquires purchase behavior information may be performed in the human mind via observation (also directed to insignificant pre-solution activity – data gathering). The step of update the purchase expectation degree correction may be performed in the human mind via judgement. The step of cause the display to display the purchase expectation degree is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data output), further a human via pen and paper is practically capable of displaying/outputting data. The recitation of a computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera (claim 1 only) and display does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use the one or more control devices as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. The computers and display are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Other than the recitation of computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera and a display nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, camera, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), and a display are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of “visualizing flow direction is a distribution network” (Claim 20, preamble). In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of track gaze of an evaluator (Claim 1 only), acquires attribute information, acquires purchase behavior information and cause the display to display which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data or displaying data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As for Applicant’s argument that the claimed method use of a camera (Claim 1 only) and therefore the invention can predict purchase expectation degree with respect to the design of an based on sensitivity information are at best improvements directed to insignificant pre-solution data gathering or represent an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e. ability to calculate a purchase expectation degree) and do not represent an improvement to the underlying technology (e.g. computer, outtputter, display, camera, etc.), does not represent an improvement in another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant’s invention as discussed/disclosed in specification (Paragraphs 2-4, 63, 90) and as claimed is directed to evaluation the impact on product sales due to the ‘design’ of a product or more specifically calculating a purchase expectation degree (purchase probability) of a product design (design of an object) based on customer (evaluator) purchase behavior (Claims 1 and 18), generating a ‘learned’ model of purchase expectation degree with respect to a (product, package) design (Claims 12 and 20). More generally tailoring/designing/personalizing the ‘design’ of a product, product package or an advertisement that suit’s customer preferences is business problem. The disclosed/claimed invention is directed, at best, to providing a solution to a well-established and common business problem. Neither the claims nor Applicant’s disclosure recites/discloses a technical solution to a technical problem. Neither the claims nor Applicant’s disclosure recites/discloses an improvement in a technology or technical field. At best the claims recite a business solution to a business problem (package design) performed via a generic computer used merely as a tool/conduit.
As for argued Specification Paragraph 30, this paragraph merely discloses the generic computing elements of the design evaluation device of Figure 1 (e.g. camera, storage unity, control unit, etc.). This paragraph does not disclose an improvement to the underlying technology (e.g. camera, computer, display, etc.), do not disclose a technical solution to a technical problem, nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in another technical field. This paragraph fails to disclose that utilizing the newly claimed camera to track evaluator gaze, of claim 1 only, is a technical solution to a technical problem or represents an improvement to the underlying technology (e.g. camera, processor, etc.) or represents an improvement in another technical field. This paragraph merely discloses a generic camera and computer each used for the old, well-known, established, routine and conventional purposes of collecting and processing data.
As for argued Specification Paragraphs 48 and 49, these paragraphs discuss the sensitivity information acquisition unit which enables the system to change, receive, acquire purchase intention information before or after showing the price. These paragraphs do not disclose an improvement to the underlying technology (e.g. computer, display, camera, etc.), do not disclose a technical solution to a technical problem, nor do they disclose an improvement in another technical field. Even, if Paragraphs 48 and 49 disclose an accurate prediction of a purchase expectation degree to acquire accurate sensitivity information and input accurate sensitivity information into a learned model, which they do not, such improvements are at best improvements in the abstract idea itself and in no way represent an improvement in an underlying technology, computer or other technical field as argued.
With regards to Specification Paragraphs 78 and 79, these paragraphs discuss at a high level of generality the technological elements – design evaluation device and learning device which include a machine learning model that calculates a purchase expectation degree from a design of an object utilizing sensitivity information from an evaluator. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose a technical solution to a technical problem, does not disclose/recite an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. computer, machine learning, etc.) nor does it disclose an improvement in another technical field. More specifically, this paragraph does not disclose at any level of detail the argued ‘improvement” (accurate prediction of a purchase expectation degree to acquire accurate sensitivity information and input accurate sensitivity information into a learned model). This paragraph fails to discuss at any level of detail integrating the abstract idea into a practical application as argued.
Under the guidance of MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include 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(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the guidance, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic computing elements - computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera and display. These generic computer hardware/software merely performs generic computer functions of receiving/acquiring, processing and displaying data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s evaluation of product purchase probability in the general field of marketing analytics and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,.... eleventh, twelfth), data storage, device, camera, display, etc.) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se) and camera,” i.e., generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner suggest Applicant review the recent 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/17/2024-15377/2024-guidance-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence) and the three new Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 47-49 (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
Additionally, examiner suggest Applicant amend the independent claims to be of commensurate scope. The current independent claims appear to be diverging and may require/necessitate a restriction requirement in future office actions (calculating a correction to a purchase expectation degree (purchase probability) of a product design (design of an object) based on customer (evaluator) purchase behavior (Claims 1 and 18) OR generating a ‘learned’ model of purchase expectation degree with respect to a (product, package) design (Claims 12 and 20)).
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, 6-12, 18, 20 and 21 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 12, 18, and 20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of marketing analysis/modeling. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, marketing analysis/modeling (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to calculating a correction to a purchase expectation degree (purchase probability) of a product design (design of an object) based on customer (evaluator) purchase behavior (Claims 1 and 18), generating a ‘learned’ model of purchase expectation degree with respect to a (product, package) design (Claims 12 and 20), wherein market analysis is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities. Further all of the steps of “tracks’ (Claim 1), “acquires”, “acquires”, “predicts”, “inputting”, “acquires”, “updates”, and “displays” (Claims 1 and 18); “stores”, “acquires”, “check”, “associates” and ‘generates” recite functions of the market analysis/modeling are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 12, 18, and 20 appears to be calculating a correction to a purchase expectation degree (purchase probability) of a product design (design of an object) based on customer (evaluator) purchase behavior (Claims 1 and 18), generating a ‘learned’ model of purchase expectation degree with respect to a (product, package) design (Claims 12 and 20).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities. The exceptions are the evaluator (who is a person or software per se) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera and display.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera and display. These generic computing components are merely used to obtain/receive and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Paragraphs 24, 43). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's market analysis in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Regarding the recited learned model learned by learning data to predict a purchase expectation degree with respect to a design of an object is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic learned model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The learned model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the learned model functions. The learned model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic learned model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues the guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-4, 6-12, 18 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera and display," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of calculates a purchase expectation degree correction value, predicts a purchase expectation degree with respect to a design, and updates the purchase expectation degree based on the purchase information (Claims 1, 18) OR check a relation between the sensitivity information and the attribute information, associates the purchase behavior information with learning data and generates a learned model (Claims 12, 20) all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera and display nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps of acquires sensitivity information, acquires attribute information of the evaluator, acquires purchase behavior information, inputting the sensitivity and attribute information into a learned model (Claims 1, 18) OR stores learning data, receiving one input from the evaluator, an image captured, and a measurement result, acquires purchase behavior information (Claims 12, 20) are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of cause a display to display (Claims 1, 18) is directed to insignificant post solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic device/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic hardware a computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera and display are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of acquires and stores data. The generic computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
Regarding the recited learned model learned by learning data to predict a purchase expectation degree with respect to a design of an object is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic learned model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The learned model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the learned model functions. The learned model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic learned model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a learned model in the claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the learned model is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
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.
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the acquiring and storing steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12, 14-17 and 21, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of market analysis and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 12, 18, and 20.
Claims 2 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by predicting market share (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 15 further limit the abstract idea by determining marketability (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4 and 16 further limit the abstract idea of inputting a plurality of designs and suggesting an optimal design from among the plurality of designs (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the expectation degree to a purchase probability (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by calculating the market share using an corrected purchase exception degree (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea determining a similar type to which the evaluator belongs and calculating a purchase exception degree correction value (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by determining a similar type the evaluator belongs to and calculating a purchase exception degree (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the sensitivity information to include at least ONE of an answer of the evaluator to an inquiry about a favorable impression of the object or a time until an answer is made or an answer of the evaluator to an inquiry about a purchase intention of the object; or a time during which the evaluator gazes at the design or a electrocenphalogram measurement result when the evaluator gazes at the design (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the acquiring of sensitivity information until after a price is presented (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 21 further limits the abstract idea by displaying the design of the object and choices indicating different levels of purchase intention and acquires one of the levels selected by the evaluator (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-4, 6-12, 18, 20 and 21, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), camera and display at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Paragraphs 24, 43). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. computer, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of storing, accessing, displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh…eleventh, twelfth), data storage, and learning device, data acquisitor (software per se), outputter (software per se), merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Paragraphs 24, 43). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170154369, discloses a system and method for tracking the gaze, on an object, of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625