DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 8/6/2025. Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-14 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that no new matter has been added (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 13), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 14 includes the limitation “distributing the content sets a priority of the content” which has not been previously disclosed. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that claim 1 makes clear that the storage unit is part of the information processing apparatus (Applicant’s Remark; p. 14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 discloses an information processing apparatus comprises a storage unit that stores destination information, however, the destination information comprises destination position information that is associated with content provided to a user from a terminal device at the destination. The claim does not limit the provided content to the content that is distributed in lines 13-15. It is unclear how a storage unit that is external to the terminal device can store destination information associated with content presented on a user device that is obtained by, and presented on, the user device. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claimed storage unit is part of the terminal device or information processing apparatus. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amended claims 1 and 13-14 now recite additional specific feature amounting to significantly more than any asserted abstract idea and defining a practical implementation of the claimed technology (Applicant’s Remark; p. 14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims include the abstract idea of observing the direction a person is moving and forming an opinion of locations they may be moving towards. Additionally, the claims are limited to the insignificant extra-solution activities of storing, receiving, and sending data. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Alexander does not explicitly disclose that the distribution unit causes the terminal device to hold the pre-downloaded content until the destination is out of a predetermined range around the user, when the probability that the user may go to the destination for which the position information is associated with the content is equal to or less than a threshold (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 17-18), it is noted that the combination of Alexander with Alonso is relied upon to disclose this limitation. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that none of the cited references teach or suggest that the distribution unit may cause the terminal device to hold the pre-downloaded content until the destination is out of a predetermined range around the user, even when the probability that the user may go to the destination for which the position information is associated with the content is equal to or less than a threshold (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 18), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claims 1 and 13-14 are limited to storing the pre-downloaded content while a user is within a distance of a destination regardless of the probability that they will visit the destination. Alonso discloses determining the probability that a user will visit a destination based on their distance to the destination and displaying content associated with the nearest destination until the user moves closer to a different destination. See rejection below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 63 discloses the communication speed between terminal devices 10, 10a, 10b and 10c is faster than the communication speed with the terminal device 10. It is unclear if the communication speed with terminal device 10 is different than the communication speed between terminal device 10 and terminal devices 10a, 10b and 10c. Figure 7 is does not cure this deficiency because it uses reference character 142 to designate the sound information communicated both between terminal devices and to the information processing apparatus. It is further unclear if paragraph 63 includes the communication speed with the information processing apparatus because the communication speed does not appear to improve when the sound information is distributed to terminal device 10. Paragraph 63 appears to disclose when the communication speed between terminal devices 10, 10a, 10b and 10c is faster than the communication speed between terminal device 10 and the information processing apparatus, instead of distributing sound information directly to each device, the information processing apparatus instead distributes the sound information to terminal device 10, over the slower connection, which then distributes the sound information to terminal devices 10a, 10b, 10c. It is unclear why the system would cause all sound information to be transmitted to a single terminal device, using a slower connection, merely because it has a faster connection to other terminal devices.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A position acquisition unit that acquires position information” in claim 1, lines 5-6, and claim 13, lines 6-7. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and position acquisition unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the position acquisition unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the position acquisition unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the position acquisition unit can be found in the specification.
“A state acquisition unit that acquires state information” in claim 1, line 7, and claim 13, line 8. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and state acquisition unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the state acquisition unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the state acquisition unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the state acquisition unit can be found in the specification.
“A prediction unit that predicts the destination” in claim 1, line 8, and claim 13, line 9. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and prediction unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the prediction unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the prediction unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the prediction unit can be found in the specification.
“A distribution unit that distributes the content” in claim 1, line 13, and claim 13, line 14. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and distribution unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the distribution unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the distribution unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the distribution unit can be found in the specification.
“A history acquisition unit that acquires behavior history information” in claim 2, line 2. Paragraph 70 of the specification discloses the information processing apparatus includes a history acquisition unit. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the history acquisition unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, or processing unit. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the history acquisition unit can be found in the specification.
“A terminal information acquisition unit that acquires terminal information” in claim 7, lines 3-4. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and terminal information acquisition unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the terminal information acquisition unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the terminal information acquisition unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the terminal information acquisition unit can be found in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “distributing the content sets a priority of the content” appears to be new matter because all of the disclosed content prioritization occurs before it is distributed. Figure 8, step S105 clearly shows setting the priority of sound information, i.e., content, before distributing the sound information in step S109. Paragraph 49 discloses the distribution unit distributes pieces of sound information in descending order of the step priority, i.e., the priority that was set before distribution as described in paragraph 44. Paragraph 88 further discloses the distribution unit sets the priority of the content to be distributed to the terminal device. There is no disclosure of setting the priority of the content by distributing it.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 2-3, the limitation “a storage unit that stores destination information in which position information of a destination is associated with content provided from a terminal device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the storage unit is part of the information processing apparatus or the terminal device. The limitation appears to indicate the storage unit is part of the terminal device since the storage unit stores information from a terminal device of a user, however, this interpretation appears inaccurate, according to figure 3, which discloses the storage unit containing destination information comprises the information processing apparatus. Although figure 2 also shows a storage unit on the terminal device, it does not contain destination information. For the purposes of examination, the destination information is assumed to be stored on the information processing apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, line 2, the limitation “a plurality of users” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the previously recited user (claim 1, line 4) is included in the plurality of users. Paragraph 42 of the specification discloses acquiring a positional history of the user, therefore, for the purposes of examination, the user is assumed to be included in the plurality of users.
Regarding claim 1, 13 and 14, lines 10, 11 and 9, respectively, the limitation “a plurality of the destinations as the destinations” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the plurality of destinations includes the previously recited predicted destination. Further, the phrase is redundant with itself. Paragraph 10 of the specification discloses “a plurality of destinations that can be a destination of the user”. For the purposes of examination, the destination is assumed to be included in the plurality of destinations.
Regarding claim 8, lines 2-3, the limitation “when a communication speed between a plurality of terminal devices is faster than a communication speed with any one of the plurality of terminal devices” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited communication with any one of the terminal devices is communication between the one terminal device and other terminal devices in the plurality of terminal devices, or communication between the one terminal device and the information processing apparatus. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that a first terminal device will obtain content from the information processing device, or cached content from a second terminal device, depending on which has a faster communication with the first terminal device.
Regarding claim 8, lines 2-3, the limitations “a plurality of terminal devices” and “one of the plurality of terminal devices” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the terminal device recited in claim 1, line 3, is included in the plurality of terminal devices and is therefore the one of the plurality of terminal devices. Paragraph 63 discloses when the communication between the terminal devices, including the terminal device 10, is faster than the communication speed with the terminal device 10 (from the information processing apparatus), the sound information will be distributed to the terminal device 10 and subsequently transferred to the other terminal devices. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to a single plurality of terminal devices.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 13, include limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
“A position acquisition unit that acquires position information” in claim 1, lines 5-6, and claim 13, lines 6-7. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and position acquisition unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the position acquisition unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the position acquisition unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the position acquisition unit can be found in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the position acquisition unit is assumed to be software executed by a processor and equivalents thereof.
“A state acquisition unit that acquires state information” in claim 1, line 7, and claim 13, line 8. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and state acquisition unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the state acquisition unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the state acquisition unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the state acquisition unit can be found in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the state acquisition unit is assumed to be software executed by a processor and equivalents thereof.
“A prediction unit that predicts the destination” in claim 1, line 8, and claim 13, line 9. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and prediction unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the prediction unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the prediction unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the prediction unit can be found in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the prediction unit is assumed to be software executed by a processor and equivalents thereof.
“A distribution unit that distributes the content” in claim 1, line 13, and claim 13, line 14. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and distribution unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the distribution unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the distribution unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the distribution unit can be found in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the distribution unit is assumed to be software executed by a processor and equivalents thereof.
“A history acquisition unit that acquires behavior history information” in claim 2, line 2. Paragraph 70 of the specification discloses the information processing apparatus includes a history acquisition unit. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the history acquisition unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, or processing unit. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the history acquisition unit can be found in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the history acquisition unit is assumed to be software executed by a processor and equivalents thereof.
“A terminal information acquisition unit that acquires terminal information” in claim 7, lines 3-4. Paragraph 33 of the specification discloses the information processing unit includes a microcomputer, processor, processing units, and terminal information acquisition unit. Paragraph 34 further discloses the terminal information acquisition unit may include an ASIC of FPGA. However, it is not explicitly disclosed that the terminal information acquisition unit is implemented on, nor comprises, a microcomputer, processor, processing unit, ASIC, or FPGA. Therefore, no corresponding structure for the terminal information acquisition unit can be found in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the terminal information acquisition unit is assumed to be software executed by a processor and equivalents thereof.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, 4 and 6-12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with
the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder
of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a storage unit that stores destination information in which position information of a destination is associated with content provided from a terminal device of a user to the user at the destination;
a position acquisition unit that acquires position information of the user from the terminal device;
a state acquisition unit that acquires state information of the user from the terminal device;
a prediction unit that predicts the destination as a destination of the user, based on the position information of the user and the state information of the user, wherein the prediction unit predicts a plurality of the destinations as the destinations of the user and calculates a probability that the user may go to each of the plurality of destinations, for each of the destinations [mental process/step]; and
a distribution unit that distributes the content to be provided to the user at the destination predicted to the terminal device and causes the terminal device to pre-download the content, before the user arrives at the destination predicted, wherein
the distribution unit sets a priority of the content to be distributed to the terminal device according to the probability [mental process/step], and
the distribution unit causes the terminal device to hold the pre-downloaded content until the destination is out of a predetermined range around the user, even when the probability that the user may go to the destination for which the position information is associated with the content is equal to or less than a threshold.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “predicts the destination … of the user…”, “predicts a plurality of the destinations … of the user…”, and “calculates a probability…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing the direction another person is moving and forming an opinion of locations they may be moving towards. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a storage unit that stores destination information in which position information of a destination is associated with content provided from a terminal device of a user to the user at the destination [pre-solution activity (storing data)];
a position acquisition unit that acquires position information of the user from the terminal device [pre-solution activity (receiving data)];
a state acquisition unit that acquires state information of the user from the terminal device [pre-solution activity (receiving data)];
a prediction unit [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing module] that predicts the destination as a destination of the user, based on the position information of the user and the state information of the user, wherein the prediction unit predicts a plurality of the destinations as the destinations of the user and calculates a probability that the user may go to each of the plurality of destinations, for each of the destinations; and
a distribution unit that distributes the content to be provided to the user at the destination predicted to the terminal device and causes the terminal device to pre-download the content, before the user arrives at the destination predicted [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data)], wherein
the distribution unit [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing module] sets a priority of the content to be distributed to the terminal device according to the probability, and
the distribution unit causes the terminal device to hold the pre-downloaded content until the destination is out of a predetermined range around the user, even when the probability that the user may go to the destination for which the position information is associated with the content is equal to or less than a threshold [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “…stores destination information…”, “…acquires position information…”, “…acquires state information…”, “…distributes the content…”, and “…causes the terminal device to hold the pre-downloaded content…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (storage unit, position acquisition unit, state acquisition unit and distribution unit) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining user information), and amount to merely receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of holding content about a destination), and amounts to merely storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The distributing and causing the terminal device to hold content steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of sending content and instructions to a terminal device), and amount to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using prediction and storage units to perform the steps “predicts the destination … of the user…”, “predicts a plurality of the destinations … of the user…”, and “calculates a probability…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “…stores destination information…”, “…acquires position information…”, “…acquires state information…”, “…distributes the content…”, and “…causes the terminal device to hold the pre-downloaded content…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to an information processing system and an information processing method (i.e., a machine and process, respectively) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4 and 6-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 4 and 6-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4 and 6-14 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 10-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US 10,540,388), hereinafter Alexander, in view of Alonso et al. (US 2016/0097646), hereinafter Alonso.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 14, as best understood, Alexander discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a storage unit (Alexander; fig. 2: persistent storage 208) that stores destination information in which position information of a destination is associated with content provided from a terminal device of a user to the user at the destination (Alexander; fig. 2: other relevant information 232; col. 7, ll. 34-37: Other relevant information 232 may also include, for example, local culture, environment, weather, and maps corresponding to the current geographic location or scheduled future geographic location of user 224.; Alexander discloses storing content associated with a future geographic destination of a user); a position acquisition unit that acquires position information of the user from the terminal device (Alexander; col. 7, ll. 18-21: Data migration and delivery manager 218 may receive geolocation data 230 from, for example, a GPS transceiver located on the mobile device currently being used by user 224.); a state acquisition unit that acquires state information of the user from the terminal device (Alexander; col. 12; ll. 15-18: Further, the data migration and delivery manager detects intermediate travel stops, travel speed, and travel mode and considers these factors while determining a data migration plan.); and a distribution unit that distributes the content to be provided to the user at the destination predicted to the terminal device and causes the terminal device to pre-download the content, before the user arrives at the destination predicted (Alexander; col. 8, ll. 6-11: Data migration and delivery manager 218 migrates all or a portion of data content 222 to each respective intermediate data delivery target destination, just prior to or during each scheduled layover time interval, and autonomously delivers all or a portion of data content 222 to user 224 at each respective train stop.; a portion of the data content is delivered to the user at each intermediate data delivery target destination prior to arriving at the destination).
Although Alexander discloses cognitive destination prediction with time and location (Alexander; col. 12-13, ll. 67-3), it is unclear if Alexander explicitly discloses a prediction unit that predicts the destination as a destination of the user, based on the position information of the user and the state information of the user, wherein the prediction unit predicts a plurality of the destinations as the destinations of the user and calculates a probability that the user may go to each of the plurality of destinations, for each of the destinations; the distribution unit sets a priority of the content to be distributed to the terminal device according to the probability; and the distribution unit causes the terminal device to hold the pre-downloaded content until the destination is out of a predetermined range around the user, even when the probability that the user may go to the destination for which the position information is associated with the content is equal to or less than a threshold.
Alonso, in the same field of endeavor (content distribution), explicitly discloses a prediction unit (Alonso; fig. 2: prediction 204) that predicts a destination as a destination of a user (Alonso; fig. 2: predicted destination 206), based on position information of the user (Alonso; fig. 2: current location 114) and state information of the user (Alonso; fig. 2: current direction 202), wherein the prediction unit predicts a plurality of destinations as destinations of the user and calculates a probability that the user may go to each of the plurality of destinations, for each of the destinations (Alonso; para. 47: the current location 114 and current direction 202 of the user 102 may suggest several possible destinations 206 of the user 102 (e.g., several locations of interest that are along a current path or trajectory of the user 102). For at least two locations of a location set, the device 104 may identify a probability 604 that the location is the destination 206 of the user 102.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the information processing apparatus of Alexander to predict the destination(s) of a user, as disclosed by Alonso, with the motivation of automatically providing content to a user that is relevant to their location thereby reducing distractions and increasing convenience (Alonso; paras. 4-5).
Alexander, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the distribution unit sets a priority of the content to be distributed to the terminal device according to the probability and the distribution unit causes the terminal device to hold the pre-downloaded content until the destination is out of a predetermined range around the user, even when the probability that the user may go to the destination for which the position information is associated with the content is equal to or less than a threshold.
Alonso further discloses a distribution unit sets a priority of content to be distributed to a terminal device according to a probability (Alonso; para. 61: The content items 208 are also ranked according to a probability 604 that the location 802 is the destination 206 of the user 102. A ranking 806 among the content items 208 according to these properties may enable a selection among the content items 208 that may be presented to the user 102.) and the distribution unit causes the terminal device to hold pre-downloaded content until a destination is out of a predetermined range around a user (Alonso; para. 47: the device 104 may decay the probability 604 of the location proportionally with a distance 602 between the location and the current location 114 of the user; para. 64: a device 104 may periodically update the prediction of destinations 206 and the presentation of content items 208 relating to such predictions. For example, at a second time after first presenting the content item 208, detect an updated location 114 and an updated direction 202 of the user 102, and, using the updated location 114 and updated direction 20, predict an updated destination 206 of the user 102. The device 102 may then adjust the presentation of the content item(s) 208 according to the updated destination; Alonso discloses holding the content as the user moves away from a destination until a new destination is selected), even when the probability that the user may go to the destination for which position information is associated with content is equal to or less than a threshold (Alonso; para. 47: even if a particular destination 206 is associated with a comparatively low probability 604, the destination 206 may be identified as the selected destination 206 if no other destinations 206 have a higher probability; the probability threshold is the equal to the probability of the next highest destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the information processing apparatus of Alexander, as modified, to prioritize and distribute content based on probability, as disclosed by Alonso, with the motivation of automatically providing content to a user that is relevant to their location thereby reducing distractions and increasing convenience (Alonso; paras. 4-5).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Alexander, as modified, discloses a history acquisition unit that acquires behavior history information of a plurality of users (Alonso; para. 49: the travel path set 702 may represent other walking or driving routes that have been traveled by other individuals 704 in order to reach various individual destinations), wherein the prediction unit predicts the destination as the destination of the user, based on the position information of the user and the behavior history information (Alonso; para. 49: identify a travel path 706 of another individual 704 that includes or approximates the current location 114 and current direction 202 of the user 102, and the destination 206 of the user 102 may be predicted according to the individual destination 708 of the selected travel path).
Regarding claim 4, Alexander, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Alexander, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the distribution unit causes the terminal device to erase the pre-downloaded content, when the probability that the user may go to the destination for which the position information is associated with the content is equal to or less than a threshold.
Alonso discloses a distribution unit causes a terminal device to erase pre-downloaded content, when a probability that a user may go to a destination for which position information is associated wi