DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on September 16, 2025. Claims 1, 5, and 12 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-11 are directed to a machine. Claims 12-20 are directed to a process. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 12.
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “A dating recommendation comprising: receive first data and second data , to generate time-series data including characteristic data generated for each period in response to the first data and the second data by analyzing the second data, and to generate personal preference data by performing a first classification, a second classification, a third classification, a fourth classification, a fifth classification, a sixth classification, and a seventh classification based on the time-series data; receive the personal preference data , to anonymize the first data included in the personal preference data, to generate image data based on the anonymized personal preference data, and to output the generated image data , wherein the characteristic data includes information about at least one of an action, an emotion, a place, a speech, a movement, and a circumstance of a user, wherein the image data comprises a visual representation of user activity on an abstracted or actual map.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities (i.e., receiving user data, generating time-series data including information about an action, emotion, place, speech, movement, and/or circumstance of a user in response to the received user data, generating personal preference data by performing various classifications based on the time-series data, anonymizing user data included in the preference data, and generating and outputting image data based on the preference data) of the abstract idea of generating user preference data based on user space/time/movement/behavior data for a dating recommendation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a platform, a first and second server, and an external electronic device. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers and servers receiving, processing, generating, and displaying information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a platform, a first and second server, and an external electronic device) amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea in a conventional manner. Further, the additional elements of using computer hardware, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii), are elements that describe well-understood, routine, conventional activities, for example, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on or with the use of generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites “sensors” and “a device system,” which are recited as generic computer components. Dependent claims 11 and 20 recite an “avatar,” which is recited as a generic interface component. The additional elements are generic technology used to implement the abstract idea, and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 are directed to an abstract idea, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art, Akutagawa et al., teaches ranking user preferences for events based on a number of times, or how often, or for how long, a user visits a certain place, and it teaches anonymizing users. However, it does not teach a dating recommendation platform, or generating personal preference data based on seven classifications based on time-series data, or anonymizing data included in the preference data, or generating and outputting image data based on the anonymized data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1-20:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim requires much more than organizing human activity. Specifically, it recites collecting multi-source data from external devices, generating time-series data, and performing seven-stage classifications (action, emotion, place, speech, movement, circumstance, etc.) to generate personal preference data. This is a rule-based, algorithmic data processing method, not a mere abstraction of human behavior. As in McRO v. Bandai Namco (Fed. Cir. 2016), specific rules for processing data render the claim non-abstract.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claims require specific components like servers, sensors, and devices to process data, categorize it, and generate personalized visual representations. This is not a generic computer performing routine tasks. Data is processed into various levels (time- series, classifications, preference data) and visualized as maps, providing a tangible, specific result, which improves user interaction. Furthermore, the inclusion of anonymization for user data is a practical, technical solution to the challenge of protecting user privacy. That is, the claims integrate the alleged exception into a meaningful practical application: (i) Privacy-Preserving Anonymization - the second server anonymizes personal data before visualization, thereby solving the technical problem of data privacy. This goes beyond mere data output and constitutes a technical safeguard; (ii) Visualization - the anonymized preference data is rendered in a virtual (metaverse) environment as avatars on actual or abstract maps. This is not mere display, but multi- layered data rendering in a specific technological context. As in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014), the claims apply the concept in a particular technological environment in a novel manner. This combination achieves privacy-preserving, personalized, and dynamic visualization in a particular technological context, which improves user interaction in a specific technological context. It is far more than simply computerizing an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The non-conventional arrangement of the two-server architecture—one for classification and another for anonymization and visualization together with a structured seven-stage data classification algorithm represents a specific technical implementation not found in the prior art. The claims are narrowly focused on a specific technical implementation, ensuring that they do not preempt all dating recommendation methods. Specifically, the claims provide the following concrete benefits: (i) Time-series seven-stage classification: Unlike conventional profile-based recommendation, the invention captures temporal and emotional variations in user data; (ii) Anonymization combined with visualization: The combination achieves personalization, security, and visualization simultaneously, which conventional systems do not. As in BASCOM v. AT&T (Fed. Cir. 2016), even if implemented using computer components, the specific architecture (first server vs. second server roles) provides an inventive concept.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong 1: The recitation of collecting multi-source data, generating time-series data, and performing seven-stage classifications (action, emotion, place, speech, movement, circumstance, etc.) to generate personal preference data), is a recitation of an abstract idea, and the external devices are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. As recited, this can fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as it relates to things such as action, emotion, and circumstance of a user, and generating preference data for the purpose of matching users. However, as recited, this can also fall under Mental Processes, as it can be performed in the human mind and/or paper and pen. Further, regarding the argument of this being an algorithmic processing method, this would fall under the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Though the claims recite additional elements of servers and devices to process, categorize, and generate data, the additional elements are used in a generic manner, to implement the abstract idea, without any technical improvement to the servers or devices themselves. Further, per MPEP 2106.05(f), a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) if the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The statement of providing a tangible, specific result which improves user interaction is a recitation of limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the inclusion of anonymization for user data to protect user privacy is a recitation of an improvement to the abstract idea itself, and does not provide any technical improvement to anonymization technology or to the server anonymizing the data. The anonymized preference data being rendered in a virtual environment as avatars on maps is also not a recitation of a technical improvement; the virtual environment and the interface are recited in a generic manner, to implement the abstract idea of presenting information such as a map. Further, the claims do not specifically recite a “virtual environment” or a metaverse, though the steps are implemented in a manner that any recitation of a “virtual environment” or metaverse would be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: As previously stated, per MPEP 2106.05(f), a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) if the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The time-series seven-stage classification and the anonymization combined with visualization is a recitation of limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629