DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claim 1 and 3-10 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
4. Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1 and 3-8 are drawn to a system (machine), claim 9 is drawn to a method (process), and claim 10 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (an apparatus) which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
5. Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 recites, in part, a system and a method comprising the following steps:
acquire exercise-related information for each of a plurality of members belonging to a specific community, the exercise-related information being acquired from …….each of the plurality of members, the exercise-related information indicating (a) a proficiency level for each of one or more exercise subjects of the corresponding member and (b) a time period in which the corresponding member is available to exercise;
extract two or more members from the plurality of members based on the exercise-related information for each of the plurality of members, the two or more members that are extracted having (i) a common one of the exercise subjects, (ii) a difference between proficiency levels for the common one of the exercise subjects that satisfies a predetermined condition, and (iii) overlapping time periods in which the two or more members are available to exercise; and
output ……… each of the two or more members that are extracted (1) an ID of the other member(s) of the two or more members that are extracted, (2) the common one of the exercise subjects, and (3) the overlapping time period in which the two or more members are available to exercise,
wherein the two or more members that are extracted and ………have received the output can communicate with each other to perform the common one of the exercise subjects during the overlapping time period in which the two or more members are available to exercise.
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, acquire personality information for each of the plurality of members, and extract the two or more members from the plurality of members based on the exercise-related information and the personality information for each of the plurality of members.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, acquire family structure information for each of the plurality of members, and extract the two or more members from the plurality of members based on the exercise-related information and the family structure information for each of the plurality of members.
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part, wherein the exercise-related information further indicates a purpose of the corresponding member for performing the exercise.
Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, wherein the exercise-related information further indicates an acceptable exercise load of the corresponding member.
Dependent claim 7 recites, in part, wherein the proficiency level corresponds to years of experience in the corresponding exercise subject.
Dependent claim 8 recites, in part, wherein the proficiency level indicates whether or not the corresponding member is proficient in a specific action in the corresponding exercise subject.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 3-8 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 9, and 10 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
6. Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor and information processing terminals. The specification defines at least one memory storing instructions as a RAM 2b (Random Access Memory) that can be freely read and written, and a ROM 2c (Read Only Memory), (Specification in § 0045), and at least one processor as a CPU 2a (Central Processing Unit), (Specification in § 0045), and information processing terminals as the plurality of UEs 3 is an information processing terminal owned by each of a plurality of members (Specification in § 0044). The use of a memory and a processor and an information processing terminal are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Independent Claim 9 recites, in part, at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor and information processing terminal. The specification defines at least one memory storing instructions as a RAM 2b (Random Access Memory) that can be freely read and written, and a ROM 2c (Read Only Memory), (Specification in § 0045), and at least one processor as a CPU 2a (Central Processing Unit), (Specification in § 0045) and information processing terminals as the plurality of UEs 3 is an information processing terminal owned by each of a plurality of members (Specification in § 0044). The use of a memory and a processor and information processing terminal are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Independent Claim 10 recites, in part, at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor and information processing terminal. The specification defines at least one memory storing instructions as a RAM 2b (Random Access Memory) that can be freely read and written, and a ROM 2c (Read Only Memory), (Specification in § 0045), and at least one processor as a CPU 2a (Central Processing Unit), (Specification in § 0045) and information processing terminals as the plurality of UEs 3 is an information processing terminal owned by each of a plurality of members (Specification in § 0044). The use of a memory and a processor and information processing terminal are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 2-4 recite, in part, at least one processor. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
7. Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor and information processing terminal. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of a memory and a processor and information processing terminal to acquire information, extract data and output the results. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception’).
Independent Claim 9 recites, in part, at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor and information processing terminal. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of a memory and a processor and information processing terminal to acquire information, extract data and output the results. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception’).
Independent Claim 10 recites, in part, at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor and information processing terminal. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of a memory and a processor and information processing terminal to acquire information, extract data and output the results. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception’).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Dependent claims 2-4 recite, in part, at least one processor. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the processor to process/analyze data. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Number 2016/0171453, Zorfas, et al., hereinafter Zorfas.
10. Regarding claim 1, Zorfas discloses an exercise community formation system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions, (para. 90) and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, (para. 90) to;
acquire exercise-related information for each of a plurality of members belonging to a specific community, the exercise-related information being acquired from information processing terminals of each of the plurality of members, the exercise-related information indicating (a) a proficiency level for each of one or more exercise subjects of the corresponding member and (b) a time period in which the corresponding member is available to exercise, (para. 5, skill level, ideal or available playing time, location, or keywords may all be provided by a user to filter through lists of users, events, or groups. Embodiments enable users to create personal profiles with preferred criteria for finding optimal partners for participating in a sport together. Some embodiments may enable users whom are members of existing sports groups or associations to create corresponding groups or subgroups in order to interact with existing users, invite new users to the group, schedule events, or find new partners in any existing group);
extract two or more members from the plurality of members based on the exercise-related information for each of the plurality of members, the two or more members that are extracted having (i) a common one of the exercise subjects, (ii) a difference between proficiency levels for the common one of the exercise subjects that satisfies a predetermined condition, and (iii) overlapping time periods in which the two or more members are available to exercise, (para. 5, skill level, ideal or available playing time, location, or keywords may all be provided by a user to filter through lists of users, events, or groups and para. 62, the base profile 100 also includes a “search bar” 142, where users may search for other users based on the criteria that a user has listed both in their individual sport profiles 105-115 as well as their base profile 100. When a user uses the search bar 142, the user can identify a set of criteria that the user would like to see in other users); and
output to the information processing terminal of each of the two or more members that are extracted ('1) an ID of the other member(s) of the two or more members that are extracted, (2) the common one of the exercise subjects, and (3) the overlapping time period in which the two or more members are available to exercise, (para. 5, para. 5, skill level, ideal or available playing time, location, or keywords may all be provided by a user to filter through lists of users, events, or groups and para. 7, receiving, by a social network system, a user-created base profile, wherein the user-created base profile comprises information about a user and a plurality of information sport profiles, each individual sport profile comprising a set of criteria);
wherein the two or more members that are extracted and whose information processing terminals have received the output can communicate with each other to perform the common one of the exercise subjects during the overlapping time period in which the two or more members are available to exercise, (para. 65, When a user selects a date and/or time in the interactive calendar 129 that is available, the social network system can automatically schedule the user and the other user to play a specified sport together. In an example embodiment, when the user selects an available time in the interactive calendar 129, the social network system can also reserve a venue for the user and the other user to participate in the specific sport. And para. 73, where members of the group can communicate to one another).
11. Regarding claim 3, Zorfas discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Zorfas further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire personality information for each of the plurality of members, (para. 24, the criteria includes at least one of the following: interests, geographical location, willingness to travel, favorite venues, age, gender, relationship status, religious background, smoking habits, drinking habits, occupation, sport accomplishments, ideal conversation topics, intensity, competitiveness, pace of play, leadership, demeanor, betting, position, strengths, and weaknesses.), and
extract the two or more members from the plurality of members based on the exercise-related information and the personality information for each of the plurality of members, (para. 25, instructions from a user to search for other users using a user-defined set of criteria, and providing to the user a list of other users which match the user-defined set of criteria).
12. Regarding claim 4, Zorfas discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Zorfas further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire family structure information for each of the plurality of members, (para. 24, the criteria includes at least one of the following: interests, geographical location, willingness to travel, favorite venues, age, gender, relationship status, religious background, smoking habits, drinking habits, occupation, sport accomplishments, ideal conversation topics, intensity, competitiveness, pace of play, leadership, demeanor, betting, position, strengths, and weaknesses). Examiner interprets ‘relationship status’ to encompass family structure information, as a relationship status would indicate the presence or absence of a spouse., and
extract the two or more members from the plurality of members based on the exercise-related information and the family structure information for each of the plurality of members, (para. 25, instructions from a user to search for other users using a user-defined set of criteria, and providing to the user a list of other users which match the user-defined set of criteria).
13. Regarding claim 5, Zorfas discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Zorfas further discloses wherein the exercise-related information further indicates a purpose of the corresponding member for performing the exercise, (para. 87, the playing habits of the plurality of club members (e.g., casual or competitive, looking for conversation or looking to keep quiet, drinking or not on the golf course, etc.).). Users are able to search for other members who want to exercise/play sports for a casual purpose or a competitive purpose.
14. Regarding claim 6, Zorfas discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Zorfas further discloses wherein the exercise-related information further indicates an acceptable exercise load of the corresponding member, (para. 4, facilitating identification of others who desire to offer and accept participation in sporting events using computer networking and para. 67, The user can select a sport category 320 which allows both the sending and the receiving user to organize the message once it is sent. The buttons labeled “Invite,” “Accept” and “Decline” in box 330 can be used when organizing events between two users. For example, the sending user can send a message to the receiving user in the browser tool 120, and can select “Invite” to invite the receiving user to play a sport selected in sport category box 320. The receiving user will see buttons labeled “Accept” or “Decline” in box 330 when they receive the message. Box 340 is available for the sending user to draft a message to the receiving user.).
15. Regarding claim 7, Zorfas discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Zorfas further discloses wherein the proficiency level corresponds to years of experience in the corresponding exercise subject, (para. 66, Criteria can be any identifying information with respect to a sport and in meeting other users who also play a specific sport. The criteria can be a user-specific ranking of skill or a sport, such as, for example “state champion,” or “elite level.” ).
16. Regarding claim 8, Zorfas discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Zorfas wherein the proficiency level indicates whether or not the corresponding member is proficient in a specific action in the corresponding exercise subject, (para. 66, Criteria can be any identifying information with respect to a sport and in meeting other users who also play a specific sport. The criteria can be a user-specific ranking of skill or a sport, such as, for example “state champion,” or “elite level.” ).
17. Regarding claims 9 and 10, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 as set forth above. Zorfas further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the computer-implemented method of claim 9, (see at least para. 86).
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments integrate any abstract idea into a practical application.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements constitute methods of organizing human activity because, acquire exercise-related information for each of a plurality of members belonging to a specific community, the exercise-related information being acquired from information processing terminals of each of the plurality of members, the exercise-related information indicating (a) a proficiency level for each of one or more exercise subjects of the corresponding member and (b) a time period in which the corresponding member is available to exercise; extract two or more members from the plurality of members based on the exercise-related information for each of the plurality of members, the two or more members that are extracted having (i) a common one of the exercise subjects, (ii) a difference between proficiency levels for the common one of the exercise subjects that satisfies a predetermined condition, and (iii) overlapping time periods in which the two or more members are available to exercise; and output to the information processing terminal of each of the two or more members that are extracted ('1) an ID of the other member(s) of the two or more members that are extracted, (2) the common one of the exercise subjects, and (3) the overlapping time period in which the two or more members are available to exercise, wherein the two or more members that are extracted and whose information processing terminals have received the output can communicate with each other to perform the common one of the exercise subjects during the overlapping time period in which the two or more members are available to exercise, can be considered methods of organizing human activity, which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
Further, in order for an alleged application of an abstract idea to be considered eligible, it must amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., pass step 2B of the Mayo test). As shown in the rejection above, the application of the abstract idea recited merely applies the idea in a generic computer environment (at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor and information processing terminal) using generic computer functions (acquiring information, extract information, output results). Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
B. Applicant argues that Zorfas does not disclose Zorfas does not disclose (A) users inputting "a time period in which the corresponding member is available to exercise", (B) using the available time period to extract two or members, and (C) outputting, to the information processing terminal of each of the two or more members that are extracted "(1) an ID of the other member(s) of the two or more members that are extracted, (2) the common one of the exercise subjects, and (3) the overlapping time period in which the two or more members are available to exercise."
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Computer-Based Method and Apparatus for Personal Assistance, Collaboration, Networking, and Providing Marketplaces (US 20230025323 A1) teaches selectively allow communication and information exchange between a user and an ally in a networked communication system that includes mobile devices, laptop computers, and computers. The user selects from a list of relationship descriptors, and trust levels are designated responsive to the relationship descriptors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber A. Misiaszek whose telephone number is (571) 270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4, every other Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) computer-accessible medium. 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 computer-accessible medium, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR computer-accessible medium, 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 computer-accessible medium, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682