DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 10/30/2025. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 6-8 have been added. Claims 1-8 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings received on 10/30/2025 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended independent claim 1 recites “automatically selecting the first user as a follow-up target, automatically storing the follow-up target in the memory and automatically transmitting a notification of the predetermined event to the user terminal of the first user.” Additionally, new claim 6 recites “automatically acquire the position information about the first user from the user terminal of the first user.”
However, the originally filed specification fails to recite any actions being performed “automatically”. Clarification is required. Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected based upon the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “in response to receiving a notification that the first user has been absent from the predetermined event at the event holding timing, automatically acquire the position information about the first user from the user terminal of the first user”, which does not seem to further limit the initial “acquiring” step of independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, information processing apparatus claims 1-8 are directed to a controller, the controller comprising at least one processor. Thus the claims are directed to a machine, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite analyzing user behavior, including acquiring, determining, and selecting steps.
The limitations of acquiring, determining, and selecting, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite acquiring position information about a first user, the first user having been absent from a predetermined event at an event holding timing, which is a date and time of the predetermined event having been held; acquiring first information that is information at the event holding timing different from the position information about the first user and is information related to the first user at the event holding timing, the first information including weather information indicating a weather situation around a position of the first user at the event holding timing; determining, based on the position information and the first information, by digital computation, that a reason for the first user having been absent from the predetermined event is a force majeure reason in response to the weather situation around the position of the first user being such a situation that it is difficult for the first user to move to an event venue at the event holding timing of the predetermined event; and in response to the absence reason being determined to be the force majeure reason, automatically selecting the first user as a follow-up target.
That is, other than reciting a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, and a user terminal, the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, and a user terminal. The controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, and user terminal in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, 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 above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, and a user terminal amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites an additional notifying step. Claims 3-5 further describe the first information. Claim 6 recites an additional acquiring step. Claims 7 and 8 further describe the first information, and recite additional determining steps. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, and a user terminal.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0042 of the specification, “The controller 110 is realized with a processor such as a CPU (central processing unit) or a GPU (graphics processing unit) and a memory. The controller 110 is provided with a position information acquisition unit 111, a first information acquisition unit 112, a determination unit 113, a selection unit 114, and a notification unit 115 as functional modules. These functional modules may be realized by performing a program by the controller 110.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorasch et al (US 20210399911 A1), in view of Kreiner et al (US 20180005337 A1).
As per claim 1, Jorasch et al disclose an information processing apparatus comprising a controller (i.e., a central controller 110, figure 1, ¶ 0114), the controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the at least one processor configured to perform:
acquiring position information about a first user, from a user terminal of the first user, the first user having been absent from a predetermined event at an event holding timing, which is a date and time of the predetermined event having been held (i.e., If a person is absent from a meeting, or it is desirable to bring a particular person into a meeting, then the central controller may assist in locating the person, ¶ 1110, wherein the central controller may determine user 1's location (e.g., room in the house; e.g., inside or outside the house; e.g., presence or absence from the house), ¶ 1540);
acquiring first information that is information at the event holding timing different from the position information about the first user and is information related to the first user at the event holding timing (i.e., If a person is absent from a meeting, or it is desirable to bring a particular person into a meeting, then the central controller may assist in locating the person, ¶ 1110), the first information including weather information indicating a weather situation around a position of the first user at the event holding timing (i.e., the central controller 110 may monitor data pertinent to user 1 that is not necessarily generated by user 1, or even generated at user 1's household. For example, knowing the location of user 1's house, the central controller may monitor the weather at user 1's location (e.g., using a public weather feed), ¶ 1538); and
in response to the absence reason being determined to be the force majeure reason, automatically selecting the first user as a follow-up target, automatically storing the follow-up target in the memory and automatically transmitting a notification of the predetermined event to the user terminal of the first user (i.e., If a person is absent from a meeting, or it is desirable to bring a particular person into a meeting, then the central controller may assist in locating the person. The central controller may take such actions as: Can ping them; Can break into a call or meeting room to contact the person; Can cause their chair to buzz or vibrate; Can buzz their headset; Can text them, ¶ 1110, including storing an employee's contact information may allow the central controller 110 to send a meeting invite to an employee, to send reminders to an employee of an impending meeting, to check in on an employee who has not appeared for a meeting, ¶ 0453).
Jorasch et al does not explicitly disclose determining, based on the position information and the first information, by digital computation, that a reason for the first user having been absent from the predetermined event is a force majeure reason in response to the weather situation around the position of the first user being such a situation that it is difficult for the first user to move to an event venue at the event holding timing of the predetermined event.
Kreiner et al disclose the current utilization 56 is shown having inputs from the real time user current location 32 and the real time infrastructure utilization 42 as well as being in two way communication with the user notification system 44, utilization request 54 and the infrastructure management system 50 (¶ 0026). The force majeure system 48 also shown with multiple exemplary communications interfaces may, for example provide decisions with respect to extraordinary events such as weather (i.e., rain, snow, flooding, etc.), a traffic accident, a parade route on a particular day, and any other type of extraordinary event that affects the infrastructure (¶ 0030).
Jorasch et al and Kreiner et al are concerned with effective event and user location management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining, based on the position information and the first information, by digital computation, that a reason for the first user having been absent from the predetermined event is a force majeure reason in response to the weather situation around the position of the first user being such a situation that it is difficult for the first user to move to an event venue at the event holding timing of the predetermined event in Jorasch et al, as seen in Kreiner et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Jorasch et al disclose the controller is configured to notify an inventor that the first user has been selected as the follow-up target, the inventor being an apparatus for inviting a plurality of users to the predetermined event (i.e., the central controller 110 may send meeting invitations, according to some embodiments. Meeting invites may be sent to an employee's email address or to some other contact address of an employee (e.g., as stored in table 5000). In various embodiments, meeting invites may be sent to peripheral devices (e.g. headset, mouse, presentation remote) and/or user devices (e.g. laptop computer, smartphone), ¶ 0739).
As per claim 3, Jorasch et al disclose the first information further includes at least one of: (i) health information indicating a health condition of the first user at the event holding timing (i.e., the central controller may determine the state of user 1's health (e.g., is user 1 sick, injured, on medication, undergoing physical therapy, or in any other state of health). In various embodiments, the central controller may determine user 1's mood. In various embodiments, the central controller may determine user 1's location (e.g., room in the house; e.g., inside or outside the house; e.g., presence or absence from the house), ¶ 1540); (ii) traffic information indicating a traffic situation on a route from a position of the first user to a venue of the predetermined event at the event holding timing; and (iii) schedule information about a schedule of the first user at the event holding timing.
As per claim 4, Jorasch et al disclose the first information further includes (i) the health information indicating the health condition of the first user at the event holding timing, and the at least one processor is configured to, in response to that the position of the first user is at a home of the first user or in a hospital at the event holding timing, and the health condition of the first user is lower than a predetermined level, determine that the reason for the first user having been absent from the predetermined event is the force majeure reason (i.e., the central controller may determine the state of user 1's health (e.g., is user 1 sick, injured, on medication, undergoing physical therapy, or in any other state of health). In various embodiments, the central controller may determine user 1's mood. In various embodiments, the central controller may determine user 1's location (e.g., room in the house; e.g., inside or outside the house; e.g., presence or absence from the house), ¶ 1540).
As per claim 5, Jorasch et al disclose the first information includes (ii) the traffic information indicating the traffic situation on the route from the position of the first user to the venue of the predetermined event at the event holding timing, and the at least one processor is configured to, in response to a situation that it is difficult for the first user to move to the venue at the event holding timing, determine that the reason for the first user having been absent from the predetermined event is the force majeure reason (i.e., the central controller 110 may monitor data pertinent to user 1 that is not necessarily generated by user 1, or even generated at user 1's household. For example, knowing the location of user 1's house, the central controller may monitor the weather at user 1's location (e.g., using a public weather feed). In various embodiments, the central controller may monitor pollen count, the occurrence of local events (e.g., parades, softball games, etc.), traffic, crime statistics, or any other state of affairs that may impact user 1, ¶ 1538).
As per claim 6, Jorasch et al disclose the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving a notification that the first user has been absent from the predetermined event at the event holding timing, automatically acquire the position information about the first user from the user terminal of the first user (i.e., If a person is absent from a meeting, or it is desirable to bring a particular person into a meeting, then the central controller may assist in locating the person, ¶ 1110, wherein the central controller may determine user 1's location (e.g., room in the house; e.g., inside or outside the house; e.g., presence or absence from the house), ¶ 1540).
As per claim 7, Jorasch et al disclose the first information further includes (iii) the schedule information about the schedule of the first user at the event holding timing (i.e., ‘Employee calendars’ table 5600 according to some embodiments is shown. Table 5600 may store information about employees' scheduled appointments, meetings, lunches, training sessions, or any other time that an employee has blocked off, ¶ 0516), and the at least one processor is configured to, in response to work of the first user being scheduled at the event holding timing and the position of the first user being at a place related to the work of the first user, determine that the reason for the first user having been absent from the predetermined event is the force majeure reason (i.e., Priority field 5132 may store a priority of a meeting. A priority may be represented using any suitable scale, as will be appreciated. The priority of a meeting may serve various purposes, and various embodiments. A company employee who is invited to two conflicting meetings may attend the meeting with higher priority, ¶ 0475).
As per claim 8, Jorasch et al disclose the at least one processor is configured to determine whether or not latitude/longitude information indicated in the position information about the first user corresponds to latitude/longitude information about a place registered as the home of the first user or the hospital (i.e., the electronic processing device 405 may identify, by the positioning system, a location of the user. For example, device 405 may identify a latitude and longitude, a city, an intersection, a landmark, a building, an address, a room, a door, a proximity to an object, or any other indication of a location of the user, ¶ 1885).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 performs automatically controls of the technical processes, e.g., automatically determining whether a reason for the first user having been absent from the predetermined event is a force majeure reason by digital computation, automatically selecting the first user as a follow-up target, automatically storing the follow-up target in the memory and automatically transmitting a notification of the predetermined event to the user terminal of the first user, based on the determination of the force majeure reason.
These recited additional limitations integrate the Office's asserted abstract idea into a practical application, because the automatic control of the technical processes represents a technological improvement over conventional systems. In the specification filed in the present application, Applicant describes that "conventionally, it has been performed to transmit a notification asking for an answer about the reason for absence to each user who was absent on the day of an event. The answer, however, is voluntarily given by each user, the answer may not be obtained." (See, specification, para. [0011]). With the conventional systems, it is unclear whether the user who was absent from the event is still interested in receiving information of the event. The embodiments of the claimed subject matter make it possible to solve this problem to accurately determine absence reasons without relying on voluntary user responses and to provide the event information as a notification to the user who is determined to be absent from the event due to the force majeure reason. For at least this reason, claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the Office's alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, and a user terminal.
The a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, and a user terminal in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, and a user terminal). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Applicant also argues that Jorasch fails to disclose each and every element recited in amended claim 1. As discussed in the updated rejection, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Examiner respectfully submits that Jorasch et al, in view of Kreiner et al indeed disclose Applicant’s amended claim language.
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 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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 January 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights