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 Amendment
The amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite methods of organizing human activity because the claims each recite a method that includes accepting a request for setting a permission of disclosure of information relating to a first product of a first company to a second company from an account of the first company; acquiring first information relating to the second company; specifying a first output aspect of a warning for first processing of giving the warning in response to the request based on the first information; executing the first processing in the first output aspect specifying the first output aspect based on an output obtained when the first information relating to the second company is input to a model in which a relationship between company information and the output aspect of the first processing is constructed such that the output aspect of the warning becomes stronger as company credibility becomes lower, and specifying the first output aspect out of output aspects each having a different strength of warning for the first processing such that the warning is displayed on a display with the first output aspect having a stronger strength of warning as the company credibility becomes lower. This is a method of organizing human activity (e.g., “disclosure of information” from the first company to the second company). The mere nominal recitation of a processor does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of accepting; acquiring; specifying; executing; specifying; and specifying in a computer environment. The mere nominal recitation of a processor is merely invoked as a tool to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of accepting; acquiring; specifying; executing; specifying; and specifying in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 13 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claims 2 and 14 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 13 by e.g., further defining the output aspects for the first processing. Claims 3-5 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 13 by e.g., further defining scores showing the highness of credibility of the second company. Claims 7-12 and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 13 by e.g., further defining the disclosed information, which includes information relating to a social credibility of the second company and/or information relating to a credibility of the second company seen from the first company. These limitations are all directed to a method of organizing human activity (e.g., “disclosure of information” from the first company to the second company). Thus, claims 2-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 13 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-12, and 14-20 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Novel & Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1 and 13 would be allowable for disclosing the process of specifying the first output aspect based on an output obtained when the first information relating to the second company is input to a model in which a relationship between information relating to a company and the output aspect of the first processing is constructed such that the output aspect of the warning becomes stronger as a credibility of the company becomes lower for companies.
Hayashi teaches the process of specifying a first output aspect of a warning for first processing of giving the warning in response to the request based on the first information, and specifying the first output aspect out of output aspects each having a different strength of warning for the first processing. Nevertheless, the prior art fails to teach specifying the first output aspect based on an output obtained when the first information relating to the second company is input to a model in which a relationship between information relating to a company and the output aspect of the first processing is constructed such that the output aspect of the warning becomes stronger as a credibility of the company becomes lower for companies as recited in independent claims 1 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues
the claimed transitions in display provide a practical application to any abstract idea. More specifically, as seen, for example, in Figures 12, 13 and 14, the display interface of the computer is improved by displaying different strengths of warning in the pop-up window so that the user can more readily grasp from the display interface whether the disclosure of information carries a high risk (e.g., due to low credibility of the intended recipient company). This improvement to user interface display technology is an improvement in computer functionality, similar to the user interfaces found patent-eligible in such cases as Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (discussed in MPEP 2106).
See also Example 37 of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility examples. Example 37 is
directed to an improved display user interface on which icons are rearranged according to use amount. Like patent-eligible claim 1 of Example 37, the independent claims of the present application integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by providing "an improved user interface for electronic devices" (Example 37, claim 1).
(pp. 8-9). The Examiner disagrees. Contrary to the position taken by Applicant, the claims do not provide an improvement to the display. Instead, the claims provide an improvement to the methods of organizing human activity that is performed by the display, i.e., providing a warning to one company regarding the credibility of another company.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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 ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628