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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejection made under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant argues that even if some of the claim features were directed to an abstract idea, the pending claims at least represent a 35 USC 101 patent eligible improvement to any of a technology and technical field.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This is a problem at the abstract layer of organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology. The problems noted in Specification do not highlight any failures of modern computers. These are business implementation problems and do not set forth any deficiencies that are particular to computer capabilities or any other technology. "In sum, 'software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added).
Specifically, making recommendations for suppressing isolation of a person living alone is an abstract endeavor. It does not become technological merely by using generic computer elements such as a processor to perform the abstract making recommendation functions at such a high level. The claimed invention does not improve any particular machine or allow one to perform a new function that it was not previously able to do. Instead, it merely chooses one that is properly scaled. This is analogous to, e.g., choosing an appropriately-sized memory when an application requires more storage or a higher-powered processor that is capable of performing faster calculations when those are necessary. It is still using a generic computing element as a tool to perform an abstract function, without setting forth any technological improvements. "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18).
These elements are all abstract and when viewed in combination only amount to applying the abstract idea on generic computers. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added).
The rest of the arguments are addressed in the Rejection below.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-12, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system. Claim 10 recites a method. Claim 11 a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of recommending a community to a user based on an attribute of the community and a household information of the user. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
estimating, based on at least one of a product purchase history of a customer and communication information between a delivery person or a salesperson and the customer, a first change, from a multi-person household to a single-person household, of the customer, wherein estimating the first change based on the product purchase history includes at least one of:
estimating, based on the purchase history, whether an amount of the product has changed from an amount for a family to an amount for one person, estimating, based on the purchase history, whether a number of times of purchasing ready-made products has increased, and estimating, from a purchase history of clothing items, a change from an outing tendency to an at-home tendency, and
wherein estimating the first change based on the communication information includes at least one of: detecting, from the communication information, information including spousal bereavement, children's independence, and job relocation, and estimating, from the communication information, a change from a first communication tendency including first words related to the multi-person household to a communication tendency including words related to the single-person household:
extracting a recommended community for single-person households, including the single-person household, from a plurality of communities for members, including the customer, based on at least one of community information including information indicating a community attribute for each of the plurality of communities for the members and an estimation result of a second change, to a second single-person household, of a second customer; and
displaying on a terminal of the customer the extracted recommended community.
Claims 1 and 11 recite equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., estimating a change in a user’s household and recommending a community based on the user’s household information).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1 and 11 recite a processor, memory and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraphs 080, 082) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 1, 10 and 11 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 10 and 11 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. For example, at least paragraph 107describes presenting an offer for an add-on order to be added to a primary order.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 remain allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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 MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688