Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 09/29/2025.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 have been canceled.
Claims 11-26 have been added.
Claims 11-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 09/29/2025, have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following non-final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 10-11 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been fully considered but are moot in view of the newly added claims 11-26 and the amended §101 rejection that may be found starting on page 4 herein.
On pages 10-11 of the Response, the Applicant presents the features of the newly added independent claims and indicates the written support in the specification. Furthermore, on page 11 of the Response, the Applicant argues “the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, and to the extent that the Examiner finds that to be the case, the claims are integrated into a practical application and recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea itself”. In view of the newly added claims 11-26, the Examiner has set forth an amended § 101 rejection of the claims that may be found starting on page 4 herein.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 11-12 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered but are moot in view of the newly added claims 11-26 and the amended prior rejections that may be found starting on page 27 herein.
On pages 11-12 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the prior art of record, namely Werner and Gonzalez, does not teach or suggest the features of the new claims. In view of the newly added claims, the Examiner has set forth an amended prior art rejection herein that may be found starting on page 27 herein.
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 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 11-16 are directed to a machine (“device”), claims 17-18 are directed to a manufacture (“non-transitory computer readable medium”), claims 19-20 are directed to a process (“method”), and claims 21-26 are directed to a machine (“system”). Thus, claims 11-26 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 11-26, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 11, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receive identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from […] a product recipient;
When the […] receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the product […] associate information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag; and
Wherein, when the […] receives information […] that designates a second product recipient as a next product recipient in a case in which the product is transferred from the first product recipient to the second product recipient […] associated information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the […] receives the identification information of the radio tag […] from the […] second product recipient.
Therefore, claims 11 and 12-15, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 11 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards managing product recipient information by associating a product recipient with product identification information (i.e., identification information of a radio tag attached to the product) – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of sales activities and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0035]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 11 identified above recite concepts of collecting information and organizing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “communication interface”, “terminal held by a product recipient”, “processor”, “key information for decoding a packet”, and a “terminal held by the second product recipient”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“a communication interface configured to receive identification information […] from a terminal held by a product recipient”, “transmit key information for decoding a packet that is transmitted from the radio tag attached to the product to the terminal held by the product recipient“, “the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the product from the terminal”, “cause the communication interface to transmit the key information to a terminal held by the second product recipient”, “the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag in a decoded packet, from the terminal held by the second product recipient”) and electronic recordkeeping (“the processor configured to: when the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the product from the terminal, associate information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”, “the processor configured to: […] associate information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag when the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag in a decoded packet, from the terminal held by the second product recipient”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 16, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
When the […] receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from […] a product recipient who obtains the product, associate information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag;
In a case in which the product is transferred from the first product recipient to a second product recipient, associate information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the […] receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from […] the first product recipient.
Therefore, claim 16 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 16 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards managing product recipient information by associating product recipients with product identification information (i.e., identification information of a radio tag attached to the product) – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of sales activities and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0035]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 16 identified above recite concepts of collecting information and organizing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “communication interface”, “processor”, “terminal held by a product recipient”, “terminal held by the first product recipient”, and steps to “enable the terminal held by the product recipient to communicate with the radio tag attached to the product”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network ( “the communication interface receives the identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal”, “the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient) and electronic recordkeeping (“the processor configured to: when the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient who obtains the product, associate information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”, “the processor configured to: […] in a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associate information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 17, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
When the […] receives the identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from […] a product recipient who obtains the product, associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag; and
In a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the […] receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from […] the first product recipient.
Therefore, claim 17 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 17 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards managing product recipient information by associating product recipients with product identification information (i.e., identification information of a radio tag attached to the product) – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of sales activities and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0035]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 17 identified above recite concepts of collecting information and organizing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “non-transitory computer readable medium including a program configured to cause one or more servers in communication with a terminal via a communication interface to execute a predetermined method”, “communication interface”, “terminal held by a product recipient”, “terminal held by the first product recipient”, and “key information for decoding a packet that is transmitted from the radio tag attached to the product”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network ( “the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient”, “causing the communication interface to transmit key information for decoding a packet that is transmitted from the radio tag attached to the product to the terminal held by the product recipient”, “the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient”) and electronic recordkeeping (“when the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient who obtains the product, associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”, “in a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 18, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
When the […] receives the identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from […] a product recipient who obtains the product, associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag; and
In a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the […] receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from […] the first product recipient.
Therefore, claim 18 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 18 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards managing product recipient information by associating product recipients with product identification information (i.e., identification information of a radio tag attached to the product) – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of sales activities and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0035]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 18 identified above recite concepts of collecting information and organizing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “non-transitory computer readable medium including a program configured to cause one or more servers in communication with a terminal via a communication interface to execute a predetermined method”, “communication interface”, “terminal held by a product recipient”, “terminal held by the first product recipient”, and steps involving “enabling the terminal held by the product recipient to communicate with the radio tag attached to the product”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network ( “the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient”, “the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient”) and electronic recordkeeping (“when the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient who obtains the product, associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”, “in a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 19, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
When the […] receives the identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from […] a product recipient who obtains the product, associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag; and
In a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the […] receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from […] the first product recipient.
Therefore, claim 19 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 19 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards managing product recipient information by associating product recipients with product identification information (i.e., identification information of a radio tag attached to the product) – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of sales activities and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0035]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 19 identified above recite concepts of collecting information and organizing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “one or more servers in communication with a terminal via a communication interface”, “communication interface”, “terminal held by a product recipient”, “terminal held by the first product recipient”, and “key information for decoding a packet that is transmitted from the radio tag attached to the product”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network ( “the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient”, “causing the communication interface to transmit key information for decoding a packet that is transmitted from the radio tag attached to the product to the terminal held by the product recipient”, “the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient”) and electronic recordkeeping (“when the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient who obtains the product, associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”, “in a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 20, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
When the […] receives the identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from […] a product recipient who obtains the product, associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag; and
In a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the […] receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from […] the first product recipient.
Therefore, claim 20 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 20 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards managing product recipient information by associating product recipients with product identification information (i.e., identification information of a radio tag attached to the product) – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of sales activities and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0035]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 20 identified above recite concepts of collecting information and organizing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “one or more servers in communication with a terminal via a communication interface”, “communication interface”, “terminal held by a product recipient”, “terminal held by the first product recipient”, and steps involving “enabling the terminal held by the product recipient to communicate with the radio tag attached to the product”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network ( “the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient”, “the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient”) and electronic recordkeeping (“when the communication interface receives identification information of a radio tag attached to a product, from a terminal held by a product recipient who obtains the product, associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”, “in a case in which the product is transferred from a first product recipient to a second product recipient, associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag, when the communication interface receives information that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient, from a terminal held by the first product recipient”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 21, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receive identification information of a radio tag attached to the product […];
When the […] receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the product […] associate information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag; and
When the […] receives the identification information of the radio tag […] associate information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag.
Therefore, claims 21 and 22-25, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 21 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards managing product recipient information by associating a product recipient with product identification information (i.e., identification information of a radio tag attached to the product) – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of sales activities and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0035]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 21 identified above recite concepts of collecting information and organizing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include an “application server having a communication interface and a processor”, “a radio tag attached to a product transferred from the first product recipient to a second product recipient”, “a first terminal held by a first product recipient”, “a second terminal held by the second product recipient including a processor configured to decode a packet transmitted from the radio tag using key information provided by the application server and transmit to the application server identification information of the radio tag in the decoded packet”, a “communication interface”, and a “processor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“a processor configured to […] transmit to the application server identification information of the radio tag in the decoded packet”, “ the communication interface of the application server configured to: receive identification information of the radio tag attached to the product and transmit the key information to the second terminal”, “the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the product”, “the communication interface receives information from a terminal held by a first product recipient”, “cause the communication interface to transmit the key information to the second terminal held by the second product recipient”, “the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag in a decoded packet from the terminal held by the second product recipient’) and electronic recordkeeping (“when the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the product, associate information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”, “when the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag in a decoded packet from the terminal held by the second product recipient, associate information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 26, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
[…] receiving identification information of a radio tag attached to the product […];
When the […] receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the product […] associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag; and
When the […] receives the identification information of the radio tag […] from […] the second product recipient, […] associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag.
Therefore, claim 26 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 26 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards managing product recipient information by associating a product recipient with product identification information (i.e., identification information of a radio tag attached to the product) – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of sales activities and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0035]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 26 identified above recite concepts of collecting information and organizing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include an “application server having a communication interface and a processor”, “a radio tag attached to a product transferred from the first product recipient to a second product recipient”, “a first terminal held by a first product recipient”, “a second terminal held by the second product recipient including a processor configured to decode a packet transmitted from the radio tag using key information provided by the application server and transmit to the application server identification information of the radio tag in the decoded packet”, a “communication interface”, and a “processor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“the communication interface of the application server receiving identification information of the radio tag attached to the product and transmit the key information to the second terminal”, the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the process”, “the communication interface receives information from a terminal held by a first product recipient that designates the second product recipient as a next product recipient” “the application server causing the communication interface to transmit the key information to the second terminal held by the second product recipient”, “the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag in a decoded packet from the terminal held by the second product recipient’) and electronic recordkeeping (“when the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag attached to the product, the processor of the application server associating information about the product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”, “when the communication interface receives the identification information of the radio tag in a decoded packet from the terminal held by the second product recipient, the processor of the application server associating information about the second product recipient with the identification information of the radio tag”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the same abstract idea as claim 11, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “storage configured to store information about the product and the identification information of the radio tag that is attached to the product”, steps involving storing/retrieving information in a memory (“a storage configured to store information”, “when the information about the product recipient is associated with the identification information of the radio tag, the processor is further configured to control the communication interface to provide the information about the product, which is stored in the storage, to the terminal”).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (““storage configured to store information”) merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for storing/retrieving information in a memory amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information in a memory fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found storing/retrieving information in a memory to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve storing/retrieving information in a memory, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 further describes associating information about a previous product recipient of the product with the identification information of the radio tag. Thus, claim 13 merely further describes the abstract ideas of commercial interactions and mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 14 further describes the product recipient as a person who purchases the product by electronic commerce, from a product seller that provides the product. Thus, claim 14 merely further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 15 recites the same abstract idea as claim 11, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the radio tag is a tag that operates by obtaining energy from radio waves of one or a plurality of certain frequencies present in its surroundings”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 22 recites the same abstract idea as claim 21, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “storage configur