DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a final office action in response to the response and amendment filed 26 September 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-4, 8, 12-15 and addition of claim 16 have been received and acknowledged
The applicant's claim for benefit as 371 of pct/JP2021/013808, filed 31 March 2021 has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the Information Disclosure Statement, Applicant has stated that an English translation of the International Search Report has been submitted. However, Examiner cannot find the translation in the file and respectfully requests Applicant submit the transaction.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that “ Amended Claim 1 … recites that a congestion degree is measured in each of the plurality of areas based on sensor data acquired from each of the plurality of areas… such recitations do not fall under any of the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity….Additionally, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application….as described in the present Specification (see e.g., Specification, 0005-0012), a user of a money transfer destination can use an electronic gift (value) within a range of an application condition designated by a third party. For example, in a case of a restaurant, a condition that the electronic gift can be used only during a timeframe other than lunch hours is set as an application condition. In this case, a user who wants to use an electronic gift visits the restaurant while avoiding congested lunch hours. Therefore, the electronic gift to which such an application condition is set can contribute to efficient management of the restaurant…..However, according to conventional apparatuses, an actual congestion condition of a store is not considered. Thus, the electronic gift can be used during the timeframe other than lunch hours, even when a store is actually congested, and a congested condition of the restaurant may not be alleviated…embodiments consistent with claim 1 may help address the aforementioned problems, by enabling a user to use electronic currency while avoiding congestion….any alleged abstract recited in claim 1 is integrated into a practical application…claims 14-15 satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least reasons similar to those already discussed above…..2-13 satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least by virtue of their dependency and by virtue of the additionally recited features therein…” (Applicant’s response, 8 and 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejection previously and below. The claims are directed to electronic currency value determination ( Specification [1] See also Specification [7] “…an object of the present disclosure is to provide an electronic currency system, an electronic currency value determination apparatus, a method, and a computer-readable medium that enable alleviation of a congestion condition...” ) Per Applicant’s own disclosure, the purpose of the invention is to ‘organize human behavior.’ The recited invention attempts to ‘enable the alleviation of a congestion condition’ (Specification 7) for example, per Applicant’s arguments, “ … embodiments consistent with claim 1 may help address the aforementioned problems, by enabling a user to use electronic currency while avoiding congestion…” (Applicant’s arguments). No improvement to technology is recited. Rather at most the recited invention improves the abstract idea. Further as noted in the rejection below and previously, the recited claims use generic computing elements recited a high level generality to implement the abstract idea (i.e. “apply it” (or equivalent) MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, Examiner withdraws the rejections in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4 Dec 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The International Search Report which was submitted has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. No English translation of the International search report has been submitted.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 14-16 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, Claims 1-10, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth in the objection to the specification.
Claims 1, 14 and 15 include the limitations of “based on sensor data acquired from each of a plurality of areas in which an electronic currency issued to a user can be used, measure a congestion degree in each of the areas, the congestion degree indicating a degree of congestion related to a number of people in a space” However, the specification provides no support for “…based on sensor data acquired from each of a plurality of areas in which an electronic currency issued to a user can be used…”
Applicant is requested to provide reference from the original disclosure to support the amendment of " based on sensor data acquired from each of a plurality of areas in which an electronic currency issued to a user can be used.”
Claims 2-10, and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency of a rejected claim.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of electronic currency value determination. In the instant case, Claims 1-13 and 16 are directed to a system. Claim 14 are directed to a process. Claim 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Electronic currency value determination is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [ fundamental economic activity and organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
[Claim 1] (Currently amended) An … currency value determination … comprising:
…; and
… to:
based on sensor data acquired from each of a plurality of areas in which an … currency issued to a user can be used, measure a congestion degree in each of the areas, the congestion degree indicating a degree of congestion related to a number of people in a space; and
determining a utility value of the …currency in each of theas, based on the measured congestion degree
[Claim 11] (Currently amended)An… currency … comprising:
the … currency value determination apparatus according to claim 1;
a payment … configured to allow the user to use the… currency at a utility value determined by the electronic currency value determination apparatus.
[Claim 14] (Original) An … currency value determination method comprising:
based on sensor data acquired from each of a plurality of areas in which an … currency issued to a user can be used, measure a congestion degree in each of the areas, the congestion degree indicating a degree of congestion related to a number of people in a space ; and
determining a utility value of the …currency in each of theareas, based on the measured congestion degree.
[Claim 15] (Original) A … to execute processing of:
based on sensor data acquired from each of a plurality of areas in which an …. currency issued to a user can be used, measure a congestion degree in each of the areas, the congestion degree indicating a degree of congestion related to a number of people in a space ; and
determining a utility value of the… currency in each of theareas, based on the measured congestion degree.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity) .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of measuring….determining… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. storing..) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-10, 11-13 and 16 are directed to systems/apparatus. Claim 14 are directed to a process. Claim 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (apparatus, memory, processor, server, program… non-transitory computer readable medium. ..electronic… ) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) (Specification, [38-43] computer apparatus… memory… CPU …program… CPU… )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-10 and 12-13) introduce the additional elements of wherein clauses further defining: …the electronic currency.. a money conversion rate.. (Claims 2, 12); …the congestion degree.. (Claims 3, 13); …the money conversion rate … (Claims 4, 8); … threshold value…(Claims 5, 6, 7); … determine… a utility value.. (Claim 9, 10)…sensor data… (Claim 16)…. These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f))
Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because the elements amounts to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) (Specification, [38] computer apparatus… memory… CPU )
Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0143142 A1 (electronic currency system )
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691