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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/04/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1,8-9 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 10 have been canceled.
Claims 1,3-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 08/04/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1,3-9 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “At least the above-underlined features recite a clear branching behavior at the server side that directly controls whether or not the subsequent authentication process (and related communication) is initiated. Accordingly, the claims are not merely automating a business rule, but rather dynamically controlling the flow of communication between devices, thereby suppressing unnecessary data transmission and improving runtime system efficiency. These advantages are discussed in e.g. pages 28-31 of the original specification. Such technical effects render any abstract idea as integrated into a practical application, satisfying Step 2A, Prong 2 (page 3/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. initiation subsequent authentication process (and related communication) and/ or dynamically controlling the flow of communication between devices, fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As thus, enhanced security and performance of the system and/or suppressing the increase in load on the network processes does not change nor effect the actual computer itself. The computer still has the same processor, the same amount of memory, and still functions in the stands way a computer is intended to function. The network still has the same amount of bandwidth. Thus, there is no change to the computer itself or the way in which it is capable of functioning. Any purported improvement in regards to performing the enhanced security and performance that are required to processes by the computer, increase in load on the network and server while preventing fraud in reward-granting processes are rooted solely in perform the identified abstract idea that is merely being applied with a general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvements in inelligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract). The same is true for the purported technological fields of enhanced security and performance of the system. The purported improvements are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself that is merely applied using a general purpose computer.
As such, any purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-9 is maintained.
Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Examiner notes the recitation of : thereby suppressing unnecessary data transmission and improving runtime system efficiency is an intended use of the claimed invention .
Applicant argues that “ Contrary to the Office Action's classification of the claims as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," the present claims are not directed to organizing human behavior, such as commercial transactions or interpersonal interactions. Instead, the claimed features are a technical mechanism that reduces unnecessary communication traffic and computational load in the reward authentication process. This control logic optimizes the communication protocol and contributes to the efficiency of the network and server system, which places the claims squarely in the realm of computer technology, not abstract human activity. Furthermore, the Office Action asserts that there is no change in the computer's physical resources (such as processor, memory, or bandwidth), and therefore, no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. However, this is an overly narrow interpretation of "improvement to the functioning of the computer itself," as being limited only to hardware-level changes. This narrow interpretation is not supported, because a performance improvement to computer functionality due to reduced resource consumption is an "improvement to the functioning of the computer itself." Accordingly, pending claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 8 and 9 recite similar features and are eligible for the same reasons. The remaining claims depend from claim 1 and are patent-eligible for at least the same reasons (page 3/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. claim 1 for instance, recites the abstract idea of reward granting system, acquired health data measured by a wearable terminal of user. As thus the limitations of claim 1 for instance are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters. Any purported improvement in regards to performing “ receiving, storing and/or transmitting data” are rooted solely in perform the identified abstract idea that is merely being applied with a general-purpose computer as evidenced from pages (10-13/31); and does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Improvements of this nature are improvements in inelligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract).
The same is true for the purported technological fields of enhanced security and performance of the system. The purported improvements are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself that is merely applied using a general purpose computer. As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. As thus, there is no improvement to the claimed additional elements and/ or the computer itself or the way in which it is capable of functioning that will result in reducing unnecessary communication traffic and computational load in the reward authentication process. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-9 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1,3-9 rejection under 35 USC § 103:Applicnat’s arguments are considered. The claim rejection of claims 1,3-9 rejection under 35 USC § 103 is withdrawn.
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 1,3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1,3-8 are directed to a machine (i.e. an apparatus); claim (s) 9 is directed to a method (i.e. a process).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The analysis is as follows:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of reward granting system, acquired health data measured by a wearable terminal of user.
Claim 1 for instance, recites the fallowing abstract idea limitations of: “ acquire health data measured by a wearable terminal of the user; determine, based on the health data, an amount of reward to be granted to the user; and transmit, to the server system, reward information indicating the amount of the reward and user identification information on the user used at the service, the server system including a storage and at least one processor, the storage being configured to: store wearable terminal identification information on any one of a plurality of wearable terminals belonging to the operator in association with the user identification information; determine, based on the reward information, whether the amount of the reward exceeds a predetermined value; when the amount of the reward does not exceed the predetermined value: not transmit, an input request of wearable terminal identification information on the wearable terminal that measured the health data of the user to the user terminal; make a first whether the user identification information transmitted by the user terminal is associated with wearable terminal identification information on any one of the plurality of wearable terminals belonging to the operator stored in the storage; and transmit screen data indicating the amount of the reward to the user terminal; and when the amount of the reward exceeds the predetermined value: transmit input screen data for inputting the wearable terminal identification information on the wearable terminal, to the user terminal; and transmit the input request of the wearable terminal identification information on the wearable terminal that measured the health data of the user to the user terminal, the at least one processor included in the user terminal is further configured to transmit, to the server system, the wearable terminal identification information input to the user terminal in response to the input request, the at least one processor included in the server system is further configured to: when the amount of the reward exceeds the predetermined value: make a second determination of, whether the wearable terminal identification information transmitted by the user terminal matches the wearable terminal identification information on any one of the plurality of wearable terminals belonging to the operator stored in the storage; and when the wearable terminal identification information transmitted by the user terminal matches the wearable terminal identification information on any one of the plurality of wearable terminals belonging to the operator stored in the storage, transmit screen data indicating the amount of the reward to the user terminal; and register the reward information and the user identification information in association with each other based on a result of the first determination or a result of the second determination”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “wearable terminal, server, processor, storage, system”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add 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)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “wearable terminal, server, processor, storage, system”. to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from pages (10-13/31) therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
store wearable terminal identification information on any one of a plurality of wearable terminals belonging to the operator in association with the user identification information, the at least one processor included in the server system being configured to: determine, based on the reward information, whether the amount of the reward exceeds a predetermined value;
transmit, to the server system, reward information indicating a content the amount of the reward and user identification information on the user used at the service;
transmit screen data indicating the amount of the reward to the user terminal; and when the amount of the reward exceeds the predetermined value:
transmit input screen data for inputting the wearable terminal identification information on the wearable terminal, to the user terminals;
transmit the input request of the wearable terminal identification information on the wearable terminal that measured the health data of the user terminal;
transmit, to the server system, the wearable terminal identification information input to the user terminal in response to the input request;
transmit screen data indicating the amount of the reward to the user terminal;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 8-9.
The dependent claims 3-7 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of: store identification information on each of the plurality of wearable terminals belonging to the operator (claim 3); when the content amount of the reward does not satisfy exceed the predetermined condition value, further determine whether the user possesses any one of the plurality of wearable terminals belonging to the operator (claim 4); store in association with the user identification information, possession information indicating whether the user possesses any one of the plurality of wearable terminals belonging to the operator (claim 5); receives the identification information input by the user in response to the input request (claim 6); store, in association with the user identification information or the identification information, contract information indicating whether the communication line is usable of the use (claim 7); which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No). Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1, 8-9.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /103
The Examiner is unable to find a prior art that teaches the limitations of : the independent claims. Thus, claims 1,3-9 contain limitations that appear to overcome the prior art of record, and do not appear to be limitations that would be obvious to combine with the prior art of record should references which teach said limitations be found.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,3-9 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Watterson, US Pub No: 2013/0330694 A1, teaches system and method for rewarding physical activity.
Inuzuka, US Pub No : 2015/0149266 A, teaches reward granting system
Muraki, US Pub No: 2012/0102558 A1, teaches system and method for enabling user authentication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622