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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 04/14/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been obviated by amendments to the drawings. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification have been obviated by Applicant’s amendments to the specification. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been obviated by Applicant’s claim amendments and by Examiner’s further consideration following Applicant’s arguments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been obviated by amendments to the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to Step 2A Prong 1, the Applicant argues that the present claims do not cover an abstract idea. The Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any mathematical concept or mental process such as comparing or categorizing information that can be performed in the human mind.
This is not found persuasive. It is maintained that the claims are directed to an abstract idea (mental process). As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. The “authenticating”, “determining”, “generating”, and “selecting” steps (see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below) all encompass mental processes that can be performed in the human mind. For instance, the step “generat[ing] state information indicating a state of a target person including at least one of an emotional state and a physical condition of the target person by extracting features from the first image in which the target person is captured and converting the features into text of the state information” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could evaluate and/or make judgements on an individual’s emotional state and physical condition by mentally evaluating their appearance. A human could also evaluate how to communicate/share this determined state information using text. Please see 35 U.S.C. rejection below to see entire analysis. Therefore, the present claims do cover an abstract idea.
With regards to Step 2A Prong 2, the Applicant argues that the elements recited by Applicant’s independent claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Applicant argues that claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended to align with USPTO guidelines and 2025 memorandum. Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite “automatically select a transmission timing based on historical access data of the authorized terminal user associated with the target person, the selected transmission timing corresponding to time periods with the highest frequency of prior access of the authorized terminal user”, “trigger transmission of the first information to a second terminal of the authorized terminal user during the selected transmission timing,” and “transmit the first information together with access control information derived from the access setting to the second terminal to cause the second terminal to restrict display or use of the first information based on the access control information”, and that these amendments reflect technical improvements in the technical field of medical information communication system. The Applicant then argues several alleged reasons regarding how the claims provide a technical improvement over conventional technology. For example, the Applicant argues that conventional technology relies only on observable data because it does not directly measure state information indicating a state of a target person including at least one of an emotional state and a physical condition of the target person. The Applicant further argues that the claimed system and method solves the problem of accurately and reliably identifying the state information using an image of the target person and a machine learning model to determine state information. The Applicant also argues that the instant claims reduce unnecessary transmission and improves communication efficiency by automatically selecting a transmission timing based on historical access data of the authorized terminal user associated with the target person. The Applicant also argues that the claimed system and method enhances processing efficiency and reduces overhead associated with improper data delivery by triggering transmission of the first information during the selected transmission timing. The Applicant also argues that the claimed system and method improves data access security by transmitting access control information to the second terminal, enabling the second terminal to restrict display or use of the first information based on the access control information.
This is not found persuasive. As mentioned previously, the limitation involving generating state information is considered an abstract idea (i.e., mental process) when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could evaluate and/or make judgements on an individual’s emotional state and physical condition by mentally evaluating their appearance. A human could also evaluate how to communicate/share this determined state information using text. The machine learning models are described at a high level of generality in the Applicant’s specification, and such involvement of a machine learning model is insignificant extra-solution activity in that it amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)]. The amended limitation “automatically select a transmission timing based on historical access data of the authorized terminal user associated with the target person, the selected transmission timing corresponding to time periods with the highest frequency of prior access of the authorized terminal user” is considered an abstract idea (i.e., evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process). Abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Regarding the limitation “trigger transmission of the first information to a second terminal of the authorized terminal user during the selected transmission timing”, this is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., sending data) (MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network); MPEP 2106.05(g)). Regarding the amended limitation “transmit the first information together with access control information derived from the access setting to the second terminal to cause the second terminal to restrict display or use of the first information based on the access control information”, this is also considered insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., sending data and displaying certain data while not displaying other data) (MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network); MPEP 2106.05(g) – limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting). Therefore, none of the limitations indicated by the Applicant are found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner also notes that the Applicant’s alleged improvements (e.g., improving communication efficiency, enhancing processing efficiency, reducing overhead, improving data access security, etc.) do not appear to be specifically discussed in the Applicant’s specification. Regardless, these limitations are not found to reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. Please see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below.
With regards to Step 2B, the Applicant further argues that claims 1, 11, and 12 are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a non-conventional and inventive combination of known elements of the field of communication apparatus and method, which constitutes an “inventive concept” under Step 2B. The Applicant argues that the conventional method does not directly measure state information indicating a state of a target person including at least one of an emotional state and a physical condition of the target person including at least one of an emotional state and a physical condition of the target person. The Applicant argues that the claimed system and method generate, using a machine learning model, state information indicating a state of a target person including at least one of an emotional state and a physical condition of the target person by processing the first image in which the target person is captured, enabling accurate identification of the state information. The Applicant also argues that the claimed invention provides a specific, tangible, and innovative approach by automatically selecting a transmission timing to trigger transmission of the first information and transmitting the first information together with access control information derived from the access setting to the second terminal to cause the second terminal to restrict display or use of the first information based on the access control information which is not taught in the prior art. The Applicant argues that taking all the additional elements individually, and in combination, claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This is not found persuasive. As shown below, the additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 12 that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Again, the limitation regarding generating state information is considered an abstract idea and not an additional element. As shown below, Vinyals, et al. (US 10,402,719) evidences that using machine learning models is considered conventional. The other limitations involving triggering transmission and restricting display have been shown below as not amounting to anything more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are maintained. Please see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections hereinbelow.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been obviated by amendments to the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. Please see reasons below for why claims are currently considered to be free of the prior art.
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 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are directed to an apparatus, method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, and thus meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, the following steps recite an abstract idea:
“authenticat[ing] the target person based on the authentication information and master information for authentication” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human would be capable of mentally authenticating (i.e., evaluating/judging) a person based on provided information.
“determin[ing] a second terminal” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human would be capable of mentally determining a second terminal (e.g., selecting a smartphone/server/table to be a second terminal).
“generat[ing] state information indicating a state of a target person including at least one of an emotional state and a physical condition of the target person by extracting features from the first image in which the target person is captured and converting the features into text of the state information” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could evaluate and/or make judgements on an individual’s emotional state and physical condition by mentally evaluating their appearance. A human could also evaluate how to communicate/share this determined state information using text.
“determin[ing] first information to be transmitted based on the state information, the first information including at least one of the first image, the state information, and the content information” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could mentally determine/evaluate which first information to transmit/share.
“automatically select[ing] a transmission timing based on historical access data of the authorized terminal user associated with the target person, the selected transmission timing corresponding to time periods with the highest frequency of prior access of the authorized terminal user” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could mentally evaluate or make judgements as to when to transmit or share information to an authorized user based on historical access data. For instance, a human could determine the best time to share information with an authorized user based on when the authorized user is most likely to be on the terminal (e.g., smartphone/tablet).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, the claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
At least one memory configured to store instructions – The memory is described at a high level of generality in the Applicant’s specification. For instance, the memory is considered a main storage apparatus implemented by a random access memory and the like (Par. [0050]). Also, storing and receiving information in memory is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv.)).
At least one processor configured to execute the instructions – The processor is described at a high level of generality. For instance, the processor is described as a processor implemented by a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and the like (Par. [0049]). The involvement of the “processor” is insignificant extra-solution activity in that it amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)].
acquire, from a first terminal via an input/output interface, authentication information to authenticate a target person – insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. The first terminal is also described at a high level of generality in the Applicant’s specification. For instance, the first terminal is described as being a portable terminal such as a smartphone and a tablet type terminal (Par. [0022]). The involvement of the “first terminal” is insignificant extra-solution activity in that it amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)].
stored in a storage – The storage is described at a high level of generality in the Applicant’s specification. For instance, the storage device is described as an auxiliary storage apparatus implemented by a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), a removable medium such as a memory card, a read only memory (ROM), or the like, and includes a storage medium (Par. [0051]). Also, storing and receiving information in a storage device is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv.)).
read, from the storage, second terminal information associated with the authenticated target person – insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
a second terminal – The second terminal is described at a high level of generality in the Applicant’s specification. For instance, the second terminal is described as a portable terminal such as a smartphone and a tablet type terminal (Par. [0036]). The involvement of the “second terminal” is insignificant extra-solution activity in that it amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)].
acquire, from the first terminal via the input/output interface, a first image in which the target person is captured and content information indicating a type of content viewed by the target person when the first image is generated - insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
using a machine learning model – Machine learning models are described at a high level of generality in the Applicant’s specification. For instance, “existing” machine learning techniques are mentioned (Par. [0030]). Also, a combination of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) are described (Par. [0096]). The involvement of the “machine learning model” is insignificant extra-solution activity in that it amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)].
Store, in the storage, a history of the state information in association with a generation date and time of the first image, and store, in the storage, an access setting that defines a terminal user authorized to access the first information for each type of content, wherein the history and the access setting are stored in association with the target person – Storing and receiving information in memory is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv.)).
trigger transmission of the first information to a second terminal of the authorized terminal user during the selected transmission timing – insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering and transmitting [MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i.); MPEP 2106.05(g)].
transmit the first information together with access control information derived from the access setting to the second terminal – insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering and transmitting [MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i.); MPEP 2106.05(g)].
to cause the second terminal to restrict display or use of the first information based on the access control information – amounts to merely outputting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i.); MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 12, when considered either individually or in an ordered combination, are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the memory, the processor, the first terminal, the storage, the second terminal, and the machine learning model, along with their associated functions and components, are recited with a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Also, simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept [MPEP 2106.05(d)].
At least one memory configured to store instructions – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”)
At least one processor configured to execute the instructions – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”)
acquire, from a first terminal via an input/output interface, authentication information to authenticate a target person – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”); Tamura (US 2015/0143485) teaches that in such a conventional system, when the user program is uploaded (registered) to a cloud environment (server) from a user terminal, authentication of the user program or the like (authentication based on an ID and a password (authority verification, etc.)) is performed (Par. [0009]).
stored in a storage – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”)
read, from the storage, second terminal information associated with the authenticated target person – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”); Par. [0009] of Tamura
acquire, from the first terminal via the input/output interface, a first image in which the target person is captured and content information indicating a type of content viewed by the target person when the first image is generated – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”); Thankavel (US2016/0217699) teaches commercially available devices (smart phone tablet, PC, laptop) to take pictures of participant’s faces (Par. [0011]); Muguchi, et al. (US 2015/0088637) teaches that in the conventional technology, cameras that take images of faces of persons who have viewed advertising contents are provided on electronic screens or the like that display the advertising contents (Par. [0007]).
using a machine learning model – Vinyals, et al. (US 10,402,719) teaches that in order to configure the encoder RNN, the decoder RNN, and the combining function, the system can train the networks using conventional machine learning training techniques (Col. 7, lines 26-29).
store, in the storage, a history of the state information in association with a generation date and time of the first image, and store, in the storage, an access setting that defines a terminal user authorized to access the first information for each type of content, wherein the history and the access setting are stored in association with the target person – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”); Cerveny (US 2014/0263674) – Cerveny teaches that the customer may also have recorded additional perioperative data in the form of manual notes, audio, video or images that may be stored in a conventional patient history file (Par. [0104]); Nee (US 2013/0060575) – it is contemplated that each of the entities having access to the systems and methods of the present invention will be required to have appropriate authorization and conventional security measures will be implemented to restrict access to the system (Par. [0015])
trigger transmission of the first information to a second terminal of the authorized terminal user during the selected transmission timing – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”); Park, et al. (US 2011/0170689) teaches that in a conventional method, a message may be transmitted at a specific time having been registered in advance by the user (Par. [0011]).
transmit the first information together with access control information derived from the access setting to the second terminal – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”)
to cause the second terminal to restrict display or use of the first information based on the access control information – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”); Wright (US 2015/0025401) teaches that access to the account data can be controlled in a conventional fashion to restrict access to each account only to those users authorized to view the respective account data (Par. [0058]).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application and without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Regarding dependent claims 2-3 and 9, the limitations only further define the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 4-8 and 10, the limitations only further define insignificant extra-solution activity of generic computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Prior Art
Claims 1-12 are currently free of the prior art.
The prior art of record (namely Mishra, et al.) does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination a communication apparatus/method comprising a processor/computer to:
acquire, from a first terminal via an input/output interface, authentication information to authenticate a target person;
authenticate the target person based on the authentication information and master information for authentication stored in a storage;
read, from the storage, second terminal information associated with the authenticated target person, and determine a second terminal;
acquire, from the first terminal via the input/output interface, a first image in which the target person is captured and content information indicating a type of content viewed by the target person when the first image is generated;
generate, using a machine learning model, state information indicating a state of a target person including at least one of an emotional state and a physical condition of the target person by extracting features from the first image in which the target person is captured and converting the features into text of the state information;
store, in the storage, a history of the state information in association with a generation date and time of the first image, and store, in the storage, an access setting that defines a terminal user authorized to access the first information for each type of content, wherein the history and the access setting are stored in association with the target person;
determine first information to be transmitted based on the state information, the first information including at least one of the first image, the state information, and the content information;
automatically select a transmission timing based on historical access data of the authorized terminal user associated with the target person, the selected transmission timing corresponding to time periods with the highest frequency of prior access of the authorized terminal user;
trigger transmission of the first information to a second terminal of the authorized terminal user during the selected transmission timing; and
transmit the first information together with access control information derived from the access setting to the second terminal to cause the second terminal to restrict display or use of the first information based on the access control information.
No other prior art reference or combination of prior art references could currently be found that fairly teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of instant claims 1, 11, and 12. Due to their dependency on independent claims 1, 11, and 12, instant claims 2-10 are also considered to currently be free of the prior art.
As the instant claims are currently considered to be free of the prior art, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). In particular, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections hereinabove must be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kawajiri (US 2021/0393131) – Fig. 8, # 133j; Par. [0134] – authentication
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST).
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights