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 .
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: At the beginning of the ninth line of claim 1, “acquires” should be “acquire”. At the beginning of the tenth line of claim 1, “determines” should be “determine”. At the beginning of the twelfth line of claim 1, “changes” should be “change”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: At the beginning of the ninth line of claim 9, “acquires” should be “acquire”. At the beginning of the tenth line of claim 9, “determines” should be “determine”. At the beginning of the twelfth line of claim 9, “changes” should be “change”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more.
First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to an information processing apparatus including a processor, in the statutory category of machine. Claim 8 is directed to an information processing method implemented by a computer, in the statutory category of process. Claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory tangible machine-readable medium having an information processing program, that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform operations, and thus to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-9 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1-7, 8, and 9 as amended are directed to a judicial exception, viz., an abstract idea, in particular to managing personal behavior, under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. They recite a method including “providing information on a target body shape as a goal to be achieved by the user in accordance with the difference calculated” and “changing . . . the provided information on the target body shape to information on a new target body shape as a new goal to be achieved by the user.” There are also a parallel information processing apparatus and non-transitory tangible machine-readable medium having an information processing program. Dependent claim 4 is further directed to an abstract idea in commercial interactions (which includes advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors), as it recites that the processor is further configured to provide the user with information on a target object that is available for purchase in a predetermined electronic mall and that corresponds to a predetermined target body shape. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 1-9 do not recite any of the specific limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, and do not 0otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Claim 1 recites an information processing apparatus including a processor, claim 8 recites an information processing method implemented by a computer, and claim 9 recites a non-transitory tangible machine-readable medium having an information processing program. These are described at a high level of abstraction, without details of structure, and an abstract idea does not become non-abstract merely because a computer is involved in applying it, as the Supreme Court ruled in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
Proceeding to Step 2B, claims 1-9 are further analyzed, based on the same criteria as Step 2A, Prong Two, and additionally on the consideration of whether a specific limitation is added other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Specifically, independent claim 8 recites “An information processing method implemented by a computer, the information processing method including: acquiring body shape information on a body shape of a user; calculating, based on comparison between the acquired body shape information and statistical data of body shape information that is based on attribute information of the user, a difference from a standard body shape that is based on the statistical data; providing information on a target body shape as a goal to be achieved by the user in accordance with the difference calculated; acquiring information on purchase history of the user; determining change in the purchase history of the user based on the information on purchase history of the user; and changing, in response to the change in the purchase history of the user, the provided information on the target body shape to information on a new target body shape as a new goal to be achieved by the user.” Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein.” Since the components are well-understood, routine, and conventional, a computer as such is, or can be, well-understood, routine, and conventional as well. The steps of acquiring information, calculating, providing information, acquiring other information, determining change in the purchase history, and changing the provide information need not be technological, and can be performed within a human mind, or, in the case of providing information, performed by speaking. Therefore, the limitations of claim 8, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites “An information processing apparatus including a processor configured to: [perform operations corresponding to the steps of claim 8].” The processor is a conventional component, as follows from Avidan, as quoted in the preceding paragraph. Claim 1 therefore requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 recites “A non-transitory tangible machine-readable medium having an information processing program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to: [perform operations corresponding to the steps of claim 8].” Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Hence, claim 9 requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 9, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B for claims 1, 8, and 9: NO)
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites that the processor is further configured to: calculate a difference between the body shape of the user and the standard body shape based on statistical data of body shape information on other users with attributes similar to an attribute of the user indicated by the attribute information. Calculating the difference need not be in itself technological. The limitations of claim 2, whether considered separately, or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites that the processor is further configured to: provide the user with information on the target body shape as the new goal to be achieved by the user. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, providing the user with information on the target body shape need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitation of claim 3, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites that the processor is further configured to provide the user with information on a target object that is available for purchase in a predetermined electronic mall and that corresponds to a predetermined target body shape. Based on the judicial precedents cited above with regard to claim 3, providing the user with information on the target body shape need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitation of claim 4, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites that in response to the user setting a target body shape in response to the provided information on the target body shape, the processor is further configured to provide the user with information on a target object that fits the set target body shape set by the user. Based on the judicial precedents cited above with regard to claim 3, providing the user with information on a target object need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 6, which depends from claim 5, recites that in response to the user setting a target object that the user wants to wear as a response result with respect to the provided information on the target body shape, and the processor is further configured to adopt a body shape that fits the set target object as a target body shape to be achieved by the user and provide the user with information on the target body shape. Setting a target object as a response result is not in itself technological, nor is adopting a body shape as a goal, or providing the user with information on the target body shape. The providing could involve transmitting data over a network, and thus (or otherwise) require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, based on judicial precedents, as cited above with regard to claim 3. Hence, the limitations of claims 5 and 6, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites that in response to the user setting a target body shape in response to the provided information on the target body shape, the processor is further configured to provide the user with information on a target object that fits the set target body shape set by the user. Based on the judicial precedents cited above with regard to claim 3, providing the user with information on a target object need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 7, which depends from claim 5, recites that processor is further configured to provide the user with information on a that is available in a predetermined electronic mall and that is increased as the user approaches the target body shape. Providing the user with this information is not in itself technological; if technology is used, the technology could involve transmitting data over a network, and thus (or otherwise) require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, based on judicial precedents, as cited above with regard to claim 3. Hence, the limitations of claims 5 and 7, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B, further for dependent claims 2-7: NO)
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and objected to for informalities, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but recites non-obvious subject matter.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and objected to for informalities, but recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Ochi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0259497) discloses acquiring body shape information on a body shape of a user (paragraph 171, emphasis added), “Acquisition unit 74 acquires body information indicating the body shape of the user and a target body shape (body shape which the user takes as a target).” Ochi further discloses providing information on a target body shape as a goal to be achieved by the user (paragraph 174, emphasis added), “Based on a current body shape and target body shape of the user, which are acquired by the acquisition unit 74, and based on the calories or the nutrients, which are output by analyzer 10, generator 20D generates information on the exercise menu which the user should do in order to achieve the target body shape, or information on the food which the user should take in. Specifically, generator 20D acquires body information indicating the current body shape of the user, the target body shape, and the calories or nutrients of the food taken in by the user. Then with reference to exercise data 71, generator 20D determines the exercise menu required for the user to achieve the target body shape. Moreover, with reference to meal data 72, generator 20D determines the meal menu required for the user to achieve the target body shape.” See also paragraphs 38, 172, 173, and 176.
However, Ochi does not disclose calculating, based on comparison between the acquired body shape information and statistical data of body shape information that is based on attribute information on the user, a difference from a standard body shape that is based on the statistical data. Ochi does not disclose providing information on a target body shape as a goal to be achieved by the user in accordance with the difference that is calculated.
Further, Ochi does not disclose acquiring information on purchase history of the user, determining change in the purchase history of the user based on the purchase history of the user, and changing, in response to the change in the purchase history of the user, the provided information on the target body shape to information on a new target body shape as a new goal to be achieved by the user. Information on purchase history is known, and has been applied in making decisions, etc. The closest prior art of record for these features, Tran (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0259497), discloses (paragraph 270, emphasis added), “It should be understood that standard ad targeting information can also be supplied such as IP address, geographic location and historic click/purchase information.” Further in the same paragraph, Tran discloses, “Statistics of purchase and advertising-related click histories for people of particular body shapes are collected and store in a database. Matches to the body shapes of other shoppers or website users can also be used to target advertising based on the purchases of other people of similar shape. This is achieved by finding similar body shapes using the body shape matching component accessing the stored shopping and clicking statistics for people of similar shape.” Paragraphs 249, 269, 364, and 368 of Tran may also be of some interest. However, Tran does not disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest the specifics of claims 1, 8, and 9, nor does any other prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Aside from new minor informalities in claims 1 and 9, the claims are still found patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The grounds for making the 35 U.S.C. 101 have shifted in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims. As set forth above, claims 1-9 are rejected as directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior, under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity; claim 4 is further directed to commercial interactions, also in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The argument that the operations involve processing multiple numerical parameters drawn from statistical models, and cannot practically be performed in the human mind is therefore moot.
Even if the claimed operations would avoid repeated recalculation, and therefore reduce the processing load on the information processing apparatus, which does not necessarily follow from the limitations recited in the claims, this does not necessarily qualify as an improvement in the functioning of a computer, in the same sense as the self-referential database at issue in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft. There, the self-referential database was recited as a specific, defined improvement in software functioning. In the present claims, reducing the processing load (as compared to precisely what prior art procedure?) might follow from a choice in which calculations and determinations to perform.
The specific operations performed for a specific purpose may achieve some benefits which prior art methods did not, but they are not therefore improvements in technology. Instead, they involve applying well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, such as an essentially generic information processing apparatus to perform particular operations directed toward an abstract idea in managing personal behavior, namely encouraging people to achieve a more desirable body shape (e.g., by unspecified diet and exercises).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tran (U.S. Patent 11,250,621) discloses reality systems.
Wannier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0235114) disclose matching the fit of individual garments to individual customers. Tran (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0125405) discloses reality systems.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 January 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights