DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/2026 has been entered.
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, and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1, and 3-7 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claims 6 and 7.
The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a machine since the claim is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a computer program that causes a computer to execute a process.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of calculating, based on a first data group in which data indicating a plurality of types of behaviors of each of a plurality of people is registered, reference behavior data indicating a reference behavior among the plurality of people about each of the plurality of types of behaviors [mathematical concept]; determining, from the plurality of types, at least one second type whose variation range among the first behavior data acquired in plurality is equal to or less than a second threshold [comparing collected information to a threshold is a mental process];
calculating a difference between the first behavior data and the reference behavior data about the each of the plurality of types [mathematical concept];
determining, from the at least one second type, at least one first type which has the difference equal to or greater than a first threshold [mental process and mathematical concept] and
extracting third behavior data indicating a behavior of a second person about each of the at least one first type from an input image [generic data extraction from an image which is obtaining/manipulating/displaying which could be considered a mental process]; and
determining whether the second person is identical with the first person based on a result of a comparison between the third behavior data and the second behavior data [Metal process] are directed to an abstract.
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The additional claim limitations acquiring, from the first data group, first behavior data, in plurality, indicating a behavior of a first person among the plurality of people about the each of the plurality of types [since it is not tied to specific technical sensor or image processing operation, it is insignificant extra-solution activity]; and registering second behavior data indicating a behavior of the first person about each of the at least one first type in a second data group [nothing more than generic data storage].
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, the generic computer components or machine learning algorithm of the Apparatus/method recited as performing generic computer or machine learning functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The Examiner finds that Claims 1, and 3-5 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for identifying identical people.
Thus, claims 1, and 3-7 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
NOTE: There is no prior art rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights