DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 12/18/2025.
• Claims 1 and 9-10 have been amended.
• Claims 11-18 have been added.
• Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. JP 2022045061, filed on 03/22/2022 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 01/28/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-8 and 11-14 are directed to a machine, claims 9 and 15-16 are directed to a process, and claims 10 and 17-18 are directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-18 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
manage a user associated with customer identification information for identifying a customer, a user associated with the customer identification information, and introduction object identification information for identifying an introduction object introduced and associated with the customer identification information;
acquire use history information including a number of times functions were used;
acquire action history information including a number of products purchased by the user; and
calculate difference information indicating a difference between pre-introduction history information for a predetermined period before introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information and post-introduction history information for a predetermined period after the introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information. based on the use history information and the action history information,
wherein the difference information includes: first difference information represented by the introduction object identification information, the first difference information indicating a difference in a number of times the functions were used before and after the introduction of the introduction object, and
second difference information represented by the instruction object identification information, the second difference information indicating a difference in the number of products purchased before and after the introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information.
The above limitations recite the concept of determining difference information in user activity after an object is introduced. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the invention relates to marketing or sales activities. This is illustrated in page 1, lines 17-21 of the Specification, describing the invention as product sales. Furthermore, the limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Specifically, the limitations of managing, acquiring information, and calculating are all observations and evaluations that could be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Independent claims 9-10 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and, as such, fall within the same identified groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1 and 9-10 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claim 1 and 9-10 recite additional elements, such as a recommendation management apparatus; circuitry; a user device; and a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing a program storing instructions which, when executed by a recommendation management apparatus, causes the recommendation management apparatus to execute processing. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1 and 9-10 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1 and 9-10 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., determining difference information in user activity after an object is introduced) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1 and 9-10 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1 and 9-10 specifying that the abstract idea of determining difference information in user activity after an object is introduced is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 9-10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 9-10 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 9-10 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1 and 9-10 these claims recite additional elements, such as a recommendation management apparatus; circuitry; a user device; and a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing a program storing instructions which, when executed by a recommendation management apparatus, causes the recommendation management apparatus to execute processing. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1 and 9-10 are manual processes, (e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, etc.). The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1 and 9-10 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1 and 9-10 specifying that the abstract idea of determining difference information in user activity after an object is introduced is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1 and 9-10 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 9-10 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-18 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Additionally, the claims further fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Dependent claims 2-3, 7, 11-13, and 15-18 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 4-6, 8, and 14 further identify additional elements such as screen information, transmitting data, a multifunction peripheral, a scanner, a facsimile apparatus, an electronic whiteboard, a projector, a personal computer, a smartphone, and an interactive voice operation apparatus. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-8 and 11-18 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1 and 9-10, dependent claims 2-8 and 11-18 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-18 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Hattori (US 20170135495 A1), hereinafter Hattori, in view of newly cited Izumo et al. (US 20170337586 A1), hereinafter Izumo, in view of newly cited Ono et al. (US 20170287047 A1), hereinafter Ono.
In regards to claim 1, Hattori discloses a recommendation management apparatus comprising (Hattori: [0085-0086]):
circuitry configured to (Hattori: [0086] – “that the data server 2 and the service server 3 each include one or more information processing devices (i.e., server devices) having a CPU and a memory. On each of the servers 2 and 3, the CPU executes an information processing program stored therein using the memory”):
manage a user device associated with customer identification information for identifying a customer, a user associated with the customer identification information, and introduction object identification information for identifying an introduction object introduced into the user device and associated with the customer identification information (Hattori: [0187-0188] and Fig. 7 – “the terminal system 1 transmits both the health information and user identification information that is preset for each user…the data server 2 stores, for each user, user information including the user identification information”; [0192-0194] – “a login screen is displayed on the display 16, and the user inputs the user identification information and a password. The portal server 41 performs authentication by using the user identification information and the password. When the authentication has succeeded, (the user of) the terminal system 1 is allowed to log in the portal site…When the user authentication has succeeded, the portal server 41 transmits a main page of the portal site to the terminal system 1…includes the provision information to be provided to the user”; [0197] – “user information stored in the portal server 41 includes the user identification information described above, personal information, and user provision history information. The personal information is, for example, information related to an individual user, such as the name of the user, the date of the user's birth, age, and gender (except for the biological information)”; [0164] – “the terminal system 1 may have a device (information terminal) for receiving and displaying the provision information…may be any information processing device, such as a mobile terminal, a personal computer, and a game apparatus, used by a user…display the provision information. Further, purchasing of the product/service described below may be performed by using the information terminal”; [0085] – “the provision information may be also called recommendation information for a user. The service server 3 performs a service for providing the provision information by using the health information obtained from the data server 2. Further, in the present embodiment, the service server 3 also provides a service for selling, to a user, a product and/or a service (hereinafter, referred to as “product/service”) which is introduced by the provision information”);
acquire use history information including a number of times functions used in the user device were used (Hattori: [0379] – “the user terminal that uses the game application receives the user identification information inputted from the user before or during the game process, and transmits the inputted user identification information to the server. The server specifies the health information to be referred to, by using the user identification information received from the user terminal”; [0089-0091] – “main terminal device 10 functions as a sensor for sensing the biological information. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, the main terminal device 10 is disposed near a user such as at a user's bedside, and senses the biological information from the user who is in bed… Doppler sensor 11 emits microwave and receives reflected wave of the emitted microwave, thereby sensing a moving body on the basis of a difference between a frequency of the emitted microwave and a frequency of the received microwave. An output waveform, from the Doppler sensor 11, which represents the biological information having been sensed, is analyzed (subjected to frequency analysis or the like), whereby the biological information such as respiration, pulse, or body motion can be further calculated… main terminal device 10 includes a microphone 13. The microphone 13 is used to sense, for example, sound (snore or the like) from the user and/or ambient noise”; see also [0194]);
acquire action history information by the user (Hattori: [0083] – “respiration, pulse, and body motion are obtained as the biological information. The health information represents information related to user's health and/or body. In the present embodiment, the health information includes a sleep index representing an index related to user's sleep, and a fatigue index representing an index related to fatigue of the user. Thus, the terminal system 1 senses the biological information of a user, calculates the sleep index and the fatigue index based on the result of sensing, and uploads the indexes to the data server 2. The terminal system 1 senses a health state of a user, and can be also called a QOL (Quality of Life) sensor.”); and
calculate difference information indicating a difference between pre-introduction history information for a predetermined period before introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information and post-introduction history information for a predetermined period after the introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information. based on the use history information and the action history information (Hattori: [0251] – “the health information in a predetermined period from the current time to a previous time is firstly analyzed as the health information of the user after the purchase, and the health information in a predetermined period from the time of the purchase to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user before the purchase. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the data server 2 calculates an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, according to the use request from the portal server 41. The portal server 41 performs comparison between the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase) of the health information before the purchase, and the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in the latest one week) of the health information after the purchase, whereby whether or not the health state of the user has improved is determined”; [0089-0091] – “main terminal device 10 functions as a sensor for sensing the biological information. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, the main terminal device 10 is disposed near a user such as at a user's bedside, and senses the biological information from the user who is in bed”);
wherein the difference information includes: first difference information represented by the introduction object identification information, the first difference information indicating a difference before and after the introduction of the introduction object (Hattori: [0251] – “the health information in a predetermined period from the current time to a previous time is firstly analyzed as the health information of the user after the purchase, and the health information in a predetermined period from the time of the purchase to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user before the purchase. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the data server 2 calculates an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, according to the use request from the portal server 41. The portal server 41 performs comparison between the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase) of the health information before the purchase, and the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in the latest one week) of the health information after the purchase, whereby whether or not the health state of the user has improved is determined”; [0083] – “health information represents information related to user's health and/or body. In the present embodiment, the health information includes a sleep index representing an index related to user's sleep, and a fatigue index representing an index related to fatigue of the user”; [0089-0091] – “main terminal device 10 functions as a sensor for sensing the biological information. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, the main terminal device 10 is disposed near a user such as at a user's bedside, and senses the biological information from the user who is in bed”); and
second difference information represented by the instruction object identification information, the second difference information indicating a difference before and after the introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information (Hattori: [0251] – “the health information in a predetermined period from the current time to a previous time is firstly analyzed as the health information of the user after the purchase, and the health information in a predetermined period from the time of the purchase to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user before the purchase. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the data server 2 calculates an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, according to the use request from the portal server 41. The portal server 41 performs comparison between the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase) of the health information before the purchase, and the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in the latest one week) of the health information after the purchase, whereby whether or not the health state of the user has improved is determined”; [0083] – “health information represents information related to user's health and/or body. In the present embodiment, the health information includes a sleep index representing an index related to user's sleep, and a fatigue index representing an index related to fatigue of the user”; [0089-0091] – “main terminal device 10 functions as a sensor for sensing the biological information. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, the main terminal device 10 is disposed near a user such as at a user's bedside, and senses the biological information from the user who is in bed”).
Hattori further discloses purchase history information (Hattori: [0221]), yet Hattori does not explicitly disclose action history information including a number of products purchased; a difference in a number of times the functions were used; and a difference in the number of products purchased.
However, Izumo teaches a similar system of recommendations (Izumo: [abstract]), including
action history information including a number of products purchased (Izumo: [0036-0038] and Fig. 3B – “correlation calculation unit 116 calculates a degree of preference, which indicates the degree of preference for the target product, for each consumer…calculates the correlation between the number of purchases and the degree of preference for the target product within the recommendation period for the recommended consumers… the degree of preference for the target product for a recommended consumer A illustrated in FIG. 3B is A1, and the number of purchases for the target product within the recommendation period is A2”); and
a difference in the number of products purchased (Izumo: [0054] – “the improvement degree of the number of purchases may be an index which is related to the amount of increase in the number of purchases attributable to recommendation of the target product…it is assumed that the difference between the number of purchases performed by the recommended consumers within a fixed period before the recommendation period and the number of purchases performed by the recommended consumers within the fixed period during the recommendation period is the improvement degree of the recommended consumers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the number of purchases of Izumo in the information of Hattori because Hattori already discloses historic information and Izumo is merely demonstrating a type of historic information. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included action history information including a number of products purchased; and a difference in the number of products purchased as taught by Izumo because purchasing analysis is well-known and the use of it in a recommendation setting would have provided more relevant information (Izumo: [0098]).
Additionally, Ono teaches a similar system of recommendations (Ono: [abstract]), including
a difference in a number of times the functions were used (Ono: [0095-0096] and Fig. 6 – “the other collection information pertaining to the status of the image forming apparatus (target analysis object) MFP005 before installing the additional application (ID001) is the data of the usage information 610 indicating the number of sheets 630 printed during the period 631. Further, in the example of FIG. 6, the other collection information pertaining to the status of the image forming apparatus (target analysis object) MFP012 after installing the additional application (ID001) is the data of the usage information 610 indicating the number of sheets 630 printed during the period 632…the analysis part 412 analyzes the change in the printed number of sheets”; [0004] – “changes such as the customer's usage status of the machine may occur after the machine is purchased”; [0046] – “the usage information includes the number of sheets copied, the number of sheets copied in two colors, the number of sheets printed, the number of sheets printed in two colors, the number of times receiving FAX data, the number of times transmitting FAX data, and the number of times of inputting data by scanning”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the number of functions of Ono in the information of Hattori/Izumo because Hattori/Izumo already discloses information and Ono is merely demonstrating a type of information. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included a difference in a number of times the functions were used as taught by Ono because function analysis is well-known and the use of it in a recommendation setting would have allowed for flexibility in responding to the changes of the customer's usage status (Ono: [0004]).
In regards to claim 2, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hattori further discloses wherein the introduction of the introduction object is prompted to the customer when a predetermined recommendation condition for the use history and the action history is satisfied (Hattori: [0199-0201] and Fig. 9 – “the provision condition table is a table in which provision conditions and provision contents are associated with each other. The provision condition represents a condition for providing the provision information. The provision content represents the content of the provision information to be provided when the provision condition associated therewith is satisfied. In FIG. 9, information indicating the content itself of the provision information such as ‘introduction of product A’ is set as the provision content… A condition related to the personal information, such as ‘man in his 40s’ and ‘men and women in their 30s’, included in the user information is set as the user condition…The health condition is a condition related to health (health information) of a user to whom the provision information is provided. As shown in FIG. 9, the health condition includes use information indicating the health information used for determining the health condition”); and
wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate the difference information using the post-introduction history information for the predetermined period after the introduction of the introduction object introduced after the introduction is prompted, and the pre-introduction history information (Hattori: [0251] – “the health information in a predetermined period from the current time to a previous time is firstly analyzed as the health information of the user after the purchase, and the health information in a predetermined period from the time of the purchase to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user before the purchase. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the data server 2 calculates an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, according to the use request from the portal server 41. The portal server 41 performs comparison between the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase) of the health information before the purchase, and the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in the latest one week) of the health information after the purchase, whereby whether or not the health state of the user has improved is determined”; [0089-0091] – “main terminal device 10 functions as a sensor for sensing the biological information. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, the main terminal device 10 is disposed near a user such as at a user's bedside, and senses the biological information from the user who is in bed”).
In regards to claim 3, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hattori further discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate and set the predetermined period before the introduction and the predetermined period after the introduction mutually independently (Hattori: [0251] – “the health information in a predetermined period from the current time to a previous time is firstly analyzed as the health information of the user after the purchase, and the health information in a predetermined period from the time of the purchase to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user before the purchase. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the data server 2 calculates an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, according to the use request from the portal server 41”; [0349] – “The predetermined period may be a previously determined period (one week in the example shown in FIG. 21). As described above, the predetermined period may be different for each product. The predetermined period may be set as a period for the additional provision time corresponding to the product or a period for the subsequent provision time corresponding to the product”).
In regards to claim 4, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hattori further discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate difference information notification screen information including the calculated difference information and analysis result storage destination information indicating a storage destination of an analysis result obtained by an analysis on the difference information (Hattori: [0350] – “Similarly to the calculation of the health information before purchase, the portal server 41 obtains the information used for calculation from the data server 2, and calculates the health information after purchase by using the obtained information. When information indicating a change in the health information between before purchase and after purchase is calculated, the portal server 41 calculates the information indicating the change on the basis of the health information before purchase and the health information after purchase”; [0352] – “the server system stores the change information in which the provision information provided to a user is associated with change, in the health information of the user, obtained before and after a predetermined reference time based on the provision information having been provided to the user”; see also [0251] and Fig. 15; the examiner interprets the calculated difference to be difference information notification screen information).
In regards to claim 5, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Hattori further discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit the generated difference information notification screen information to a destination associated with the customer identification information (Hattori: [0251] and Fig. 15 – “the data server 2 calculates an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, according to the use request from the portal server 41. The portal server 41 performs comparison between the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase) of the health information before the purchase, and the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in the latest one week) of the health information after the purchase, whereby whether or not the health state of the user has improved is determined”; [0184] and Fig. 1 – “the portal server 41 is a server that manages a portal site for providing, to the user, the health information accumulated in the data server 2, or the provision information described above. The portal server 41 has a function of accessing the data server 2, generating the provision information by using the health information accumulated in the data server 2, and providing the provision information to the user (the terminal system 1)”; [0215] – “the data server 2 transmits, to the portal server 41, the health information”).
In regards to claim 6, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Hattori further discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to, after transmitting the difference information notification screen information, transmit alternative introduction object storage destination information indicating a storage destination of an alternative introduction object that serves as an alternative of the introduction object to a communication terminal or the user device (Hattori: [0251] and Fig. 15 – “portal server 41 performs comparison between the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase) of the health information before the purchase, and the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in the latest one week) of the health information after the purchase, whereby whether or not the health state of the user has improved is determined. For example, when the average fatigue level is reduced by a predetermined value or more, the portal server 41 determines that the health state (the fatigue level) of the user has improved, whereas when the average fatigue level is not reduced by the predetermined value or more, the portal server 41 determines that the health state (the fatigue level) of the user has not improved. The portal server 41 generates the additional provision information such that the content thereof is different according to the determination results. For example, in the example of the additional provision condition table shown in FIG. 14, when it is determined that the fatigue level has improved, on the basis of: the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase; and the average fatigue level in the latest one week, the additional provision information for introducing product D is generated. Meanwhile, when it is determined that the fatigue level has not improved, the additional provision information for introducing product E is generated”; [0256] – “the portal server 41 transmits the additional provision information to the terminal system 1 (step S29)”; [0184] and Fig. 1 – “the portal server 41 is a server that manages a portal site for providing, to the user, the health information accumulated in the data server 2, or the provision information described above. The portal server 41 has a function of accessing the data server 2, generating the provision information by using the health information accumulated in the data server 2, and providing the provision information to the user (the terminal system 1)”; [0215] – “the data server 2 transmits, to the portal server 41, the health information”).
In regards to claim 8, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hattori further discloses wherein the user device includes at least one of a multifunction peripheral, a scanner, a facsimile apparatus, an electronic whiteboard, a projector, a personal computer, a smartphone, or an interactive voice operation apparatus (Hattori: [0164] – “the information terminal may be any information processing device, such as a mobile terminal, a personal computer”).
In regards to claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a method. Claim 9 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards an apparatus. The apparatus of Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Hattori further discloses a recommendation management method performed by a recommendation management apparatus that manages information relating to an introduction object introduced in association with customer identification information for identifying a customer, the method comprising (Hattori: [0002]; [0360]). Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claim 11, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hattori further discloses wherein the introduction of the introduction object is prompted to the customer when a predetermined recommendation condition for the use history and the action history is satisfied (Hattori: [0199-0201] and Fig. 9 – “the provision condition table is a table in which provision conditions and provision contents are associated with each other. The provision condition represents a condition for providing the provision information. The provision content represents the content of the provision information to be provided when the provision condition associated therewith is satisfied. In FIG. 9, information indicating the content itself of the provision information such as ‘introduction of product A’ is set as the provision content… A condition related to the personal information, such as ‘man in his 40s’ and ‘men and women in their 30s’, included in the user information is set as the user condition…The health condition is a condition related to health (health information) of a user to whom the provision information is provided. As shown in FIG. 9, the health condition includes use information indicating the health information used for determining the health condition”).
In regards to claim 12, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hattori further discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate difference information notification screen information including the calculated difference information (Hattori: [0350] – “Similarly to the calculation of the health information before purchase, the portal server 41 obtains the information used for calculation from the data server 2, and calculates the health information after purchase by using the obtained information. When information indicating a change in the health information between before purchase and after purchase is calculated, the portal server 41 calculates the information indicating the change on the basis of the health information before purchase and the health information after purchase”; [0352] – “the server system stores the change information in which the provision information provided to a user is associated with change, in the health information of the user, obtained before and after a predetermined reference time based on the provision information having been provided to the user”; see also [0251] and Fig. 15; the examiner interprets the calculated difference to be difference information notification screen information).
In regards to claim 14, Hattori/Izumo/Ono teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yet Hattori does not explicitly disclose wherein the user device includes at least one of a multifunction peripheral, a scanner, a facsimile apparatus, an electronic whiteboard, a projector, or an interactive voice operation apparatus.
However, Izumo teaches a similar system of recommendations (Izumo: [abstract]), including
wherein the user device includes at least one of a multifunction peripheral, a scanner, a facsimile apparatus, an electronic whiteboard, a projector, or an interactive voice operation apparatus (Izumo: [0094] – “the image reading unit 126 is, for example, a scanner”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Izumo with Hattori for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claims 15-16, all the limitations in method claims 15-16 are closely parallel to the limitations of apparatus claims 11 and 3, respectively, analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claims 10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori, in view of Izumo.
In regards to claim 10, Hattori discloses a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing a program storing instructions which, when executed by a recommendation management apparatus that manages information relating to an introduction object introduced in association with customer identification information for identifying a customer, causes the recommendation management apparatus to execute processing, the processing comprising (Hattori: [0002]; [0360]; [0085-0086]):
managing a user device associated with the customer identification information, a user associated with the customer identification information, and introduction object identification information for identifying the introduction object introduced into the user device and associated with the customer identification information (Hattori: [0187-0188] and Fig. 7 – “the terminal system 1 transmits both the health information and user identification information that is preset for each user…the data server 2 stores, for each user, user information including the user identification information”; [0192-0194] – “a login screen is displayed on the display 16, and the user inputs the user identification information and a password. The portal server 41 performs authentication by using the user identification information and the password. When the authentication has succeeded, (the user of) the terminal system 1 is allowed to log in the portal site…When the user authentication has succeeded, the portal server 41 transmits a main page of the portal site to the terminal system 1…includes the provision information to be provided to the user”; [0197] – “user information stored in the portal server 41 includes the user identification information described above, personal information, and user provision history information. The personal information is, for example, information related to an individual user, such as the name of the user, the date of the user's birth, age, and gender (except for the biological information)”; [0164] – “the terminal system 1 may have a device (information terminal) for receiving and displaying the provision information…may be any information processing device, such as a mobile terminal, a personal computer, and a game apparatus, used by a user…display the provision information. Further, purchasing of the product/service described below may be performed by using the information terminal”; [0085] – “the provision information may be also called recommendation information for a user. The service server 3 performs a service for providing the provision information by using the health information obtained from the data server 2. Further, in the present embodiment, the service server 3 also provides a service for selling, to a user, a product and/or a service (hereinafter, referred to as “product/service”) which is introduced by the provision information”);
acquiring use history information including a number of times functions used in the user device were used (Hattori: [0379] – “the user terminal that uses the game application receives the user identification information inputted from the user before or during the game process, and transmits the inputted user identification information to the server. The server specifies the health information to be referred to, by using the user identification information received from the user terminal”; [0089-0091] – “main terminal device 10 functions as a sensor for sensing the biological information. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, the main terminal device 10 is disposed near a user such as at a user's bedside, and senses the biological information from the user who is in bed… Doppler sensor 11 emits microwave and receives reflected wave of the emitted microwave, thereby sensing a moving body on the basis of a difference between a frequency of the emitted microwave and a frequency of the received microwave. An output waveform, from the Doppler sensor 11, which represents the biological information having been sensed, is analyzed (subjected to frequency analysis or the like), whereby the biological information such as respiration, pulse, or body motion can be further calculated… main terminal device 10 includes a microphone 13. The microphone 13 is used to sense, for example, sound (snore or the like) from the user and/or ambient noise”; see also [0194]);
acquiring action history information by the user (Hattori: [0083] – “respiration, pulse, and body motion are obtained as the biological information. The health information represents information related to user's health and/or body. In the present embodiment, the health information includes a sleep index representing an index related to user's sleep, and a fatigue index representing an index related to fatigue of the user. Thus, the terminal system 1 senses the biological information of a user, calculates the sleep index and the fatigue index based on the result of sensing, and uploads the indexes to the data server 2. The terminal system 1 senses a health state of a user, and can be also called a QOL (Quality of Life) sensor.”); and
calculating difference information indicating a difference between pre- introduction history information for a predetermined period before introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information and post-introduction history information for a predetermined period after the introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information, based on the use history information and the action history information (Hattori: [0251] – “the health information in a predetermined period from the current time to a previous time is firstly analyzed as the health information of the user after the purchase, and the health information in a predetermined period from the time of the purchase to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user before the purchase. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the data server 2 calculates an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, according to the use request from the portal server 41. The portal server 41 performs comparison between the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase) of the health information before the purchase, and the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in the latest one week) of the health information after the purchase, whereby whether or not the health state of the user has improved is determined”; [0089-0091] – “main terminal device 10 functions as a sensor for sensing the biological information. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, the main terminal device 10 is disposed near a user such as at a user's bedside, and senses the biological information from the user who is in bed”).
Hattori further discloses purchase history information (Hattori: [0221]), yet Hattori does not explicitly disclose action history information including a number of products purchased.
However, Izumo teaches a similar system of recommendations (Izumo: [abstract]), including
action history information including a number of products purchased (Izumo: [0036-0038] and Fig. 3B – “correlation calculation unit 116 calculates a degree of preference, which indicates the degree of preference for the target product, for each consumer…calculates the correlation between the number of purchases and the degree of preference for the target product within the recommendation period for the recommended consumers… the degree of preference for the target product for a recommended consumer A illustrated in FIG. 3B is A1, and the number of purchases for the target product within the recommendation period is A2”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the number of purchases of Izumo in the information of Hattori because Hattori already discloses historic information and Izumo is merely demonstrating a type of historic information. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included action history information including a number of products purchased as taught by Izumo because purchasing information is well-known and the use of it in a recommendation setting would have provided more relevant information (Izumo: [0098]).
In regards to claim 17, Hattori/Izumo teaches the medium of claim 10. Hattori further discloses wherein the introduction of the introduction object is prompted to the customer when a predetermined recommendation condition for the use history and the action history is satisfied (Hattori: [0199-0201] and Fig. 9 – “the provision condition table is a table in which provision conditions and provision contents are associated with each other. The provision condition represents a condition for providing the provision information. The provision content represents the content of the provision information to be provided when the provision condition associated therewith is satisfied. In FIG. 9, information indicating the content itself of the provision information such as ‘introduction of product A’ is set as the provision content… A condition related to the personal information, such as ‘man in his 40s’ and ‘men and women in their 30s’, included in the user information is set as the user condition…The health condition is a condition related to health (health information) of a user to whom the provision information is provided. As shown in FIG. 9, the health condition includes use information indicating the health information used for determining the health condition”).
In regards to claim 18, Hattori/Izumo teaches the medium of claim 10. Hattori further discloses calculating and setting the predetermined period before the introduction and the predetermined period after the introduction mutually independently (Hattori: [0251] – “the health information in a predetermined period from the current time to a previous time is firstly analyzed as the health information of the user after the purchase, and the health information in a predetermined period from the time of the purchase to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user before the purchase. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the data server 2 calculates an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, according to the use request from the portal server 41”; [0349] – “The predetermined period may be a previously determined period (one week in the example shown in FIG. 21). As described above, the predetermined period may be different for each product. The predetermined period may be set as a period for the additional provision time corresponding to the product or a period for the subsequent provision time corresponding to the product”).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori, in view of Izumo, in view of Ono, in view of previously cited Truong et al. (US 20200103877 A1), hereinafter Truong.
In regards to claim 7, Hattori discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Hattori further discloses wherein the action history information includes purchase history information relating to a purchase of the user device (Hattori: [0368] – “transmitted from the service providing server 42 to the portal server 41 in order to manage the purchasing (purchase history) by the portal server 41”; [0221] – “purchase information indicates whether or not the product/service introduced by the provision information associated therewith has been purchased”
Yet Hattori does not explicitly disclose contract history information relating to a contract of the user device, and research history information relating to a research on the user device.
However, Truong teaches a similar system of recommendations (Truong: [abstract]), including
contract history information relating to a contract of the user device, and research history information relating to a research on the user device (Truong: [0051] – “Prioritization module 320 can identify the priorities the user. This can be based on a variety of information and/or inferences made over time from historical interactions, user role, project lifecycle phase, company preferences, and the like. For example, role detection module can identify the current role of a user…role detection module 325 can access profile information, project information, and monitor current activity within the integrated platform by the user. The user's activity may be suggestive of the current role (e.g., based on selection of tool or application, specific inquiries, specific actions or selections, and the like)”; [0062] – “in some embodiments, various information such as…previous contract number…may be used to verify that the user is located onsite with a company”; see also [0033-0034] and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the information of Truong in the information of Hattori because Hattori already discloses historic information and Truong is merely demonstrating a type of historic information. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included contract history information relating to a contract of the user device, and research history information relating to a research on the user device as taught by Truong because information is well-known and the use of it in a recommendation setting would have improved user experience (Truong: [0037]).
In regards to claim 13, Hattori/Izumo/Ono discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hattori further discloses wherein the action history information includes purchase history information relating to a purchase of the user device (Hattori: [0368] – “transmitted from the service providing server 42 to the portal server 41 in order to manage the purchasing (purchase history) by the portal server 41”; [0221] – “purchase information indicates whether or not the product/service introduced by the provision information associated therewith has been purchased”
Yet Hattori does not explicitly disclose contract history information relating to a contract of the user device.
However, Truong teaches a similar system of recommendations (Truong: [abstract]), including
contract history information relating to a contract of the user device (Truong: [0051] – “Prioritization module 320 can identify the priorities the user. This can be based on a variety of information and/or inferences made over time from historical interactions, user role, project lifecycle phase, company preferences, and the like. For example, role detection module can identify the current role of a user…role detection module 325 can access profile information, project information, and monitor current activity within the integrated platform by the user. The user's activity may be suggestive of the current role (e.g., based on selection of tool or application, specific inquiries, specific actions or selections, and the like)”; [0062] – “in some embodiments, various information such as…previous contract number…may be used to verify that the user is located onsite with a company”; see also [0033-0034] and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the information of Truong in the information of Hattori because Hattori already discloses historic information and Truong is merely demonstrating a type of historic information. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included contract history information relating to a contract of the user device as taught by Truong because information is well-known and the use of it in a recommendation setting would have improved user experience (Truong: [0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/18/2025, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible because they “this claim is not solely directed to a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process as it recites at least the physical elements of a recommendation management apparatus, circuitry, and a user device.” (Remarks page 10). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP enumerates groupings of abstract ideas, thereby synthesizing the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination. See MPEP 2106.04. Among the enumerated groupings is the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and Mental Processes. With respect to the claims, the examiner notes a recommendation management apparatus; circuitry; a user device; and a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing a program storing instructions which, when executed by a recommendation management apparatus, causes the recommendation management apparatus to execute processing have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claims further recite limitations such as acquiring information and determining a difference. These amendments represent certain methods of organizing human activity. Page 1, lines 17-21 of the Specification illustrates this, describing the invention as pertaining to product sales. Furthermore, the limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Specifically, the limitations of managing, acquiring information, and calculating are all observations and evaluations that could be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, these claims recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because “[t]he claims recite a number of additional elements that apply or use any recited judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment” (Remarks page 11). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP sets forth, in Step 2A Prong Two, that a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole “integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.” The evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole ‘integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use 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.’ In the instant case, the claims include additional elements such as a recommendation management apparatus; circuitry; a user device; and a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing a program storing instructions which, when executed by a recommendation management apparatus, causes the recommendation management apparatus to execute processing. While these elements are recited, they are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of determining difference information in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements provide a technical improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using the software architecture as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims provide significantly more because “like Amdocs, Bascom, and Example 35, the present claims operate in a non-conventional and non-generic manner'" (Remarks pages 14-17). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute significantly more, the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of determining difference information in response to an object being introduced. This is illustrated in specification page 1, lines 15-15 which discusses that the invention might provide improvements to recommendations. Furthermore, with respect to Example 35, the examiner notes that the Subject Matter Examples are to be interpreted based on the fact patterns within, as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes.
Although the claims include computer technology such as a recommendation management apparatus; circuitry; a user device; and a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing a program storing instructions which, when executed by a recommendation management apparatus, causes the recommendation management apparatus to execute processing, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of determining difference information in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO, as well as Example 35. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving determination of difference information. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more accurate process for providing recommendations, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to users while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve information determination, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims do not provide significantly more.
35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Applicant argues the claims are allowable because the cited art does not disclose “the difference information includes: first difference information represented by the introduction object identification information, the first difference information indicating a difference in a number of times the functions were used before and after the introduction of the introduction object, and second difference information represented by the instruction object identification information, the second difference information indicating a difference in the number of products purchased before and after the introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information” (Remarks pages 18-20). The examiner disagrees. Initially, the examiner notes that the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection and a new reference has been cited to teach a difference in a number of times the functions were used and a difference in the number of products purchased. Furthermore, Hattori discloses the difference information includes: first difference information represented by the introduction object identification information, the first difference information indicating a difference before and after the introduction of the introduction object, and second difference information represented by the instruction object identification information, the second difference information indicating a difference before and after the introduction of the introduction object indicated in the introduction object identification information. Hattori discloses this in [0251], disclosing that health information in a predetermined period from the current time to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user after the purchase, and the health information in a predetermined period from the time of the purchase to a previous time is analyzed as the health information of the user before the purchase. For example an average fatigue level in the latest one week and an average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase, as analysis results, where a comparison is made between the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in one week immediately before the purchase) of the health information before the purchase, and the result of the analysis (the average fatigue level in the latest one week) of the health information after the purchase, whereby whether or not the health state of the user has improved is determined. Hattori further discloses in [0083] that the health information includes a sleep index representing an index related to user's sleep, and a fatigue index representing an index related to fatigue of the user. Thus, the cited art teaches these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Previously cited Kirkham et al. (US 20170169343 A1), hereinafter Kirkham, teaches a method of mobile app recommendations. User activity with respect to a personal computer may be tracked to determine app recommendations.
Previously cited NPL Reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 10/02/2025, teaches determining user activity on a device. A determination is made as to whether there is a difference between expected user usage and actual usage. Usability issues on mobile apps may be determined.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights