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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 06/27/2025.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11 and 14-15 have been amended.
4. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 6, recites a method which is a statutory class, an information generation method performed by a computer, comprising:
accepting an input search conditions including a required time and a payment;
generating a tourist route in accordance with the search conditions based on a traveler’s request regarding stay time and payment for each tourism spot; and
presenting recommendation information including a tourist route plan, required time for the tourist route plan, and total fee about the tourist route plan.
The steps of,
accepting an input search conditions including a required time and a payment;
generating a tourist route in accordance with the search conditions based on a traveler’s request regarding stay time and payment for each tourism spot; and
presenting recommendation information including a tourist route plan, required time for the tourist route plan, and total fee about the tourist route plan,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for generating behavior information based on behavior of a person. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to improving timeline of events for product location pairs.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as commercial interaction, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory, information generation device, and a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of accepting an input search conditions including a required time and a payment; generating a tourist route in accordance with the search conditions by referring to a database storing information representing a required time and fee for each tourism spot; and presenting recommendation information including a tourist route plan, required time for the tourist route plan, and total fee about the tourist route plan) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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.
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
a processor, a memory, information generation device, and a computer amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the menu to the second location as performed by a generic computer components (Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a processor, a memory, information generation device, and a computer, performing commercial interactions including: accepting an input search conditions including a required time and a payment; generating a tourist route in accordance with the search conditions by referring to a database storing information representing a required time and fee for each tourism spot; and presenting recommendation information including a tourist route plan, required time for the tourist route plan, and total fee about the tourist route plan, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, independent claims 1, 6 and 11 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 7 and 12, these claims recite “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: acquiring (i) payment data including an amount paid from a payment system based on face authentication, and (ii) biometrics information of a person who paid when the person paid at a facility in a tourism spot; identifying the person who paid with the acquired biometrics information, referring to a database soring personal information of tourists; and generating behavior history information of the person who paid by correlating information indicating a place of the tourism spot, the payment data, and personal information of the person.”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example but for “the processor, memory and the machine learning model” language in claims 1, 6 and 11. The claim falls into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 3, 8 and 13, these claims recite “wherein the personal information includes attribute data on at least one of nationality and gender of the person.” These claim recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 2, 7 and 12. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 4, 9 and 14, these claims recite “wherein the biometric information extracted from face data generated by photographing a face of the person, the nationality of the person, and the gender of the person are registered in the database in association with each other.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 3, 8 and 13. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 5, 10 and 15, these claims recite “wherein the nationality and the gender of the person read from a passport of the person when the face of the person is photographed are registered in the database in association with the biometric information.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 4, 9 and 14. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claims 1, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mays (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090850) in view of Hitachi Systems LTD (JP) (JP 2016-139263 A) (hereinafter “Naito’).
Claims 1, 6 and 11: Mays discloses an information generation device, an information generation method performed by a computer, and a non-transitory recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to execute processing; comprising,
a memory, (see at least paragraph 0089) configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor, (see at least paragraph 0145) configured to execute the instructions to perform:
accepting an input search conditions including a required time and a
payment, Mays teaches a request can be received requesting the provision of a visual travel guide (see at least paragraphs 0076, 0088, 0111, 0123 and 0147 and see also figure 21 elements 21400 and 21700); and
presenting recommendation information including a tourist route plan, required time for the tourist route plan, and total fee about the tourist route plan, Mays teaches in certain exemplary embodiments, via one or more user interfaces 20600, such as a graphical user interface, a user can view a rendering of information, such as content, commands, and/or a visual travel guide, related to researching, designing, modeling, creating, developing, building, manufacturing, operating, maintaining, storing, marketing, selling, delivering, selecting, specifying, requesting, ordering, receiving, returning, rating, and/or recommending any of the products, services, methods, and/or information described herein (see at least paragraph 0146).
While Mays teaches the limitations mentioned above, May does not explicitly teach generating a tourist route in accordance with the search conditions based on a traveler’s request regarding stay time and payment for each tourism spot. However, Naito teaches when creating a plan, the plan creation unit 11 confirms whether the usage time and the usage amount meet the user's conditions for each candidate sightseeing spot and transportation route. In addition, the plan creation unit 11 confirms the status of availability and congestion related to the candidates, and confirms the status such as whether reservation is possible for those that require reservation. The plan creation unit 11 incorporates candidates that meet the user's requirements into the plan (see at least paragraph 3 page 7; paragraph 11 page and paragraph 3 page 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Mays to modify to include the teaching of Naito in order to support user’s travel to be comfortable and enjoyable.
12. Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mays (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090850) in view of Hitachi Systems LTD (JP) (JP 2016-139263 A) (hereinafter “Naito’) and further in view of (JP WO2017/033291 A1) to HITACHI,LTD JP (hereinafter ’Hitachi’).
Claims 2, 7 and 12: Mays in view of disclose the information generation device, an information generation method performed by a computer, and a non-transitory recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to execute processing according to claims 1, 6 and 11, and Mays further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform:
acquiring (i) payment data including an amount paid from a payment system based on face authentication, Mays teaches fees can be paid by subscribers (see at least paragraphs 0088-0089, 0123 and 0143); and
generating behavior history information of the person who paid by correlating information indicating a place of the tourism spot, the payment data, and personal information of the person, Mays teaches cataloging annotations may include assigning way point physical location addressing, internal accession address codes, and/or date and time of capturing the photographs. Administrative annotations may include information on what type of image-capturing device produced the photograph as well as copyright notification, and the like. The results of this combining-images, directional information, text, addressing, etc., can be converted in block 24 into one or more computer-readable files and/or stored for subsequent retrieval in a main computer database at block 26 (see at least paragraph 0026).
While Mays teaches the limitations mentioned above, Mays does not explicitly teach biometrics information of a person who paid when the person paid at a facility in a tourism spot; and identifying the person who paid with the acquired biometrics information, referring to a database soring personal information of tourists.
However, Hitachi teaches the data structure of the electronic money management table 130 includes the traveler's passport number as a holder of the electronic money card as a key, the traveler's age, nationality, gender, electronic money balance, currency exchange (e.g., the traveler's home country). Currency), return schedule, expiration date, validity of the electronic money card, and electronic money No. identifying the issued electronic money (see at least paragraph 5 page 5, paragraph 5 page 8, paragraph 6 page 9, paragraph 9 page 11 and paragraph 8 page 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Mays and Naito to modify to include the teaching of Hitachi in order to find out the authenticity of a traveler (see at least paragraph 12 page 15).
Claims 3, 8 and 13: Mays in view of disclose the information generation device, an information generation method performed by a computer, and a non-transitory recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to execute processing according to claims 1, 6 and 11, and Hitachi further teaches wherein the personal information includes attribute data on at least one of nationality and gender of the person, Hitachi teaches the data structure of the electronic money management table 130 includes the traveler's passport number as a holder of the electronic money card as a key, the traveler's age, nationality, gender, electronic money balance, currency exchange (e.g., the traveler's home country). Currency), return schedule, expiration date, validity of the electronic money card, and electronic money No. identifying the issued electronic money (see at least paragraph 5 page 5, paragraph 5 page 8, paragraph 6 page 9, paragraph 9 page 11 and paragraph 8 page 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Mays and Naito to modify to include the teaching of Hitachi in order to find out the authenticity of a traveler (see at least paragraph 12 page 15).
Claims 4, 9 and 14: Mays in view of disclose the information generation device, an information generation method performed by a computer, and a non-transitory recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to execute processing according to claims 1, 6 and 11, and Hitachi further teaches wherein the biometric information extracted from face data generated by photographing a face of the person, the nationality of the person, and the gender of the person are registered in the database in association with each other, Hitachi teaches a traveler who has registered information on settlement means does not need to carry a conventional settlement means such as a passport, boarding pass, and cash, credit card or electronic money card when shopping at the tax-free facility (see at least paragraph 2 page 14 and Hitachi further teaches if there is registration of biometric authentication information that matches the traveler's biometric information received from the store terminal 200 by the above-described verification, that is, if biometric authentication is successful (s202: OK), the traveler settlement support The server 100 acquires traveler attribute information such as age, nationality, and gender from the traveler record in the passport information table 125 (s203) (see at least paragraph 2 page 14; paragraph 8 page 14 and paragraph7 page 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Mays and Naito to modify to include the teaching of Hitachi in order to find out the authenticity of a traveler (see at least paragraph 12 page 15).
Claims 5, 10 and 15: Mays in view of disclose the information generation device, an information generation method performed by a computer, and a non-transitory recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to execute processing according to claims 1, 6 and 11, and Hitachi further teaches wherein the nationality and the gender of the person read from a passport of the person when the face of the person is photographed are registered in the database in association with the biometric information, Hitachi teaches the data structure of the electronic money management table 130 includes the traveler's passport number as a holder of the electronic money card as a key, the traveler's age, nationality, gender, electronic money balance, currency exchange (e.g., the traveler's home country). Currency), return schedule, expiration date, validity of the electronic money card, and electronic money No. identifying the issued electronic money (see at least paragraph 5 page 5, paragraph 5 page 8, paragraph 6 page 9, paragraph 9 page 11 and paragraph 8 page 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Mays and Naito to modify to include the teaching of Hitachi in order to find out the authenticity of a traveler (see at least paragraph 12 page 15).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/27/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
14. Applicants argued that “…The claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. In particular, the claimed subject matter is directed to a practical application of any alleged judicial exception, such that the claims are patent subject matter eligible. Specifically, the claims present recommendation information including a tourist route plan, required time for the tourist route plan, and total fee about the tourist route plan, which is practical application as to the tourist route plan, rendering the claims patent subject matter eligible.” Remarks page 6
15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The additional element of a computer is claimed and described at a high level of generality as a tool used to implement the abstract idea without improving computers or another technology. Nor does performing a method on a generic computing device apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, or transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the abstract idea in some other meaningful way to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained.
16. Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/27/2025 with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1, 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Hitachi Systems LTD (JP) (JP 2016-139263 A) (hereinafter “Naito’). See new rejection above.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
18. Hitachi Kokusai Electric Inc (JP) (WO 2018/180588 A1) discloses provide a facial image matching system which is suited to analyzing visitor behavior within a facility (see at least the Abstract).
19 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.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 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, llana Spar can be reached on 571)270-7537. 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 10/02/2025