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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment (“Response”) filed 9 December 2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments filed in the Response with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Each of the elements whether individually or in combination are no more than generic computer components, and do not represent any computer functions beyond what processors typically perform and therefore do not provide significantly more, i.e., an inventive concept, to the claim. Presenting or displaying information from one person to another covers managing interactions between people utilizing generic computer components, therefore it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Even further, when focused on the particulars of the information presented or modified, this covers steps which could be performed in the human mind and/or on pen and paper such as a judgement of opinion and therefore falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and display (claim 1) or computer (claim 10) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the presenting and modifying steps). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-10 are directed to presenting and dynamically modifying data, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 10) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
An information processing device comprising:
a processor programmed to control a display to:
present to a user an expression group related to taste or aroma of a first food/beverage;
present to the user a second food/beverage as a candidate of a food/beverage that the user eats and drinks together with the first food/beverage;
dynamically modify, in response to a designation by the user of the second food/beverage, from among the expression group, at least one display characteristic of one or more expressions related to the taste or aroma of the second food/beverage, the one or more expressions being a subset of expressions in the expression group, such that an appearance of the subset of expressions changes after the designation.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental process performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor programmed to control a display”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity and/or mental process. For example, but for the “processor programmed to control a display” language, “present to a user an expression group related to taste or aroma of a first food/beverage; present to the user a second food/beverage as a candidate of a food/beverage that the user eats and drinks together with the first food/beverage” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “present to a user an expression group related to taste or aroma of a first food/beverage; present to the user a second food/beverage as a candidate of a food/beverage that the user eats and drinks together with the first food/beverage; dynamically modify, in response to a designation by the user of the second food/beverage, from among the expression group, at least one display characteristic of one or more expressions related to the taste or aroma of the second food/beverage, the one or more expressions being a subset of expressions in the expression group, such that an appearance of the subset of expressions changes after the designation” in the context of this claim encompass mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion (or on pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite three additional elements – “a processor programmed to control a display” (claim 1) or “a computer” (claim 10). The processor, display and computer are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the presenting and dynamically modifying steps). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor, display and computer amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the processor, display and computer are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627