Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/677,082

INFORMATION PROVIDING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROVIDING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
May 29, 2024
Examiner
JOSEPH, TONYA S
Art Unit
3628
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rakuten Group Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
24%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 3m
To Grant
43%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 24% of cases
24%
Career Allow Rate
138 granted / 588 resolved
-28.5% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 3m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
633
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§103
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§102
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 588 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are no longer directed to an abstract odea. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims remain directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Namely, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Applicant’s claims are directed to a worker installing cups on a golf course based on the information sent by a processor. This is plainly certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant further argues that the claims recite a technical architecture and also provide a technical improvement to a golf course and therefore are eligible. The Examiner disagrees. While Applicant’s claims recite computer structure, it is recited at a high level of generality. Applicant further argues regarding an improvement to technology, “…"[t]his configuration provides round times that take into account the weather data and cup positions on the golf course for the round day. Thus, the accuracy of round time estimation is improved.". The Examiner disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, this is not a technical solution, but a business improvement in a golf course setting. Further, Applicant’s claims do not provide a technical solution to a problem that is rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims seek to solve a problem whose roots exist in a pre-Internet world and are now being solved through the use of generic computing components/additional elements. Applicant’s claimed components, when taken alone or as a whole or as an ordered combination do not improve these components, nor do they provide a practical application. Applicant further argues, “…Third, and significantly, the claims produce a tangible, physical improvement. The specification at paragraph [0116] explains that the cup position constraints "avoid situations in which the cup position is set at the same position every day and the grass on the green is damaged." Grass is not an abstract concept. Grass is a physical, tangible thing. Preventing damage to grass is an improvement to a physical object in the real world.” While grass is not an abstract concept, the idea of not damaging grass is not a problem rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims remain directed to the abstract idea without significantly more. Accordingly. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are 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 1-2, 4-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1 The claims recite: obtain weather data for a day on a golf course by communicating with a website, the golf course including holes and the weather data including a weather forecast for the day; obtain recommended cup positions set respectively in the holes for the day, each of the recommended cup positions being set in a corresponding recommended cup area that is located away from one or more reference positions by a predetermined distance or more, the one or more reference positions being one or more past cup positions that were set during a specified period before the round day; estimation code configured to cause at least one processor of the one or more processors to estimate a round time for the day from the weather data and the cup positions; provide the estimated round time and a green area including the recommended cup areas on used by a manager of the golf course, such that when the manager selects one of the recommended cup positions, the round time corresponding to the selected recommended cup position is displayed; and register, confirmed cup positions when the recommended cup positions are confirmed as the confirmed cup positions for the day in response to an operation to the manager of the golf course; and transmit data of the confirmed cup positions to a used by a worker who will install the cups over a network, thereby avoiding a situation in which a cup position is set at the same position every day and grass on a green is damaged. The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)** and (c) mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind- (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “one or more processors; memory, programs, one or more computers”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and concepts performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2 The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, processors; memory, programs, . These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than: 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f); - (varied codes, one or more processors, memory, programs, non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more computers, a manager terminal, screen, worker terminal, website, network) iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(golf course) The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Step 2B Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception Dependent Claims Step 2A: The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A — Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two. While Claim 2 describes varied codes and a golf course; Claim 4-processor, code; Claim 5-code, processor and golf course; Claim 7-processor, golf course, and varied code; Claim 8-varied code and processor; Claim 8-varies and processor, Claim 11-golf course, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies. Dependent Claims Step 2B: The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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. /TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
May 13, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Nov 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Mar 13, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 25, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 25, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12547950
SECURE TICKETING PLATFORM AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12417416
Multi-Modal Directions with a Ride Service Segment in a Navigation Application
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Patent 12361438
ADJUSTING SEAT BOOKING AVAILABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Patent 12293310
METHODS FOR SHARED VEHICLE ACCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted May 06, 2025
Patent 12277512
VEHICLE AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 15, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
24%
Grant Probability
43%
With Interview (+19.5%)
4y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 588 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month