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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to claims filed 11/26/2025. Claims 1-3, 9-12, 16, and 17 are amended. Claims 4-8, 13-15, and 18-20 are canceled. Therefore, claims 1-3, 9-12, 16 and 17 are pending and are examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in PCT/JP2021/043349 , filed on 2021-11-26.
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 1-3, 9-12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-3: An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
Claims 9, 11 and 12: An information processing method comprising, executing by a computer:
Claims 10, 16, and 17: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program, that when executed by a computer, causes the computer to...
Claims 1-3 are directed to an apparatus with processors and memory devices which is an apparatus claims and falls under at least “machine or manufacture.” Claims 9, 11, 12 are directed to a computer-implemented method which falls under “process.” Claim 10, 16, and 17 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium which falls under at least “manufacture.” Therefore, all of the claims fall under at least one potentially eligible subject matter category and are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 9, and 10 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1 Preamble: An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
Claim 9 Preamble: An information processing method comprising, executing by a computer:
Claim 10 Preamble: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to... Claim 1 Body (also representative of claims 9 and 10 body):
estimate an activity area of a user of an account of social media, based on public information being published on the Internet in association with the account, wherein the public information includes information indicating a connection between accounts on the social media; and
estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, based on the public information;
determine a user of another account related to the activity area;
estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, based on the public information being published on the Internet in association with the user of the other account having a predetermined relationship with the user of the account;
estimate that the activity area coinciding with a birthplace of the user of the other account is a birthplace of the user of the account;
estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, based on the public information being published on the Internet in association with the other account;
estimate a hobby and a preference of the user of the other account, based on the public information being published on the Internet in association with the other account;
estimate a relationship between a user of the account and the activity area, based on a degree of variations in a hobby and a preference of a plurality of other users having a predetermined relationship with the user of the account;
estimate that the activity area is a birthplace of the user of the account when a hobby and a preference of the plurality of other users vary at a reference level or more;
estimate that the activity area is not a birthplace of the user of the account when the hobby and the preference of the plurality of other users do not vary at a reference level or more;
generate, using a kernel density estimation function, a first position distribution based on a plurality of post locations included in the public information in association with the account of the user;
generate, using the kernel density estimation function, a second position distribution based on residence locations of the plurality of other users;
generate an activity area distribution of the user by combining the first position distribution and the second position distribution;
control, based on the generated activity area distribution, a user interface to provide location-based content relevant to the activity area of the user, wherein the location-based content comprises a heat map displayed on a regional map, and the heat map indicates the activity area distribution.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 9, and 10 recite an abstract idea within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” More specifically, the present invention falls under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). In the instant case, the claims in bold recite steps such as ‘estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, estimate a hobby and a preference of the user of the other account, generate an activity area distribution of the user by combining the first position distribution and second position distribution, and provide location-based content relevant to the activity area of the user.”
In this case, the “Internet” is also part of the abstract idea because it merely the source of the public information, and not a functional step requiring the use of the internet. The steps above merely recite the inference of a user’s personal behavior by estimating their relationship to a certain location, i.e., such as whether a certain location is their birthplace, based on public information such as their relationships with other users. (See spec [0025 – 0033 which provide definitions for several claim elements.) Even when considering all of the amended limitations in bold, it is clear that the claims merely recite concepts related to managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people by estimating the relationships based on social indicators. For example, the limitation, “estimate a relationship between a user of the account and the activity area, based on a degree of variations in a hobby and a preference of a plurality of other users having a predetermined relationship with the user of the account;” specifies that the relationship is inferred based on degree of variations between the hobby and preferences of a user and other users having a predetermined relationship with the user. This is merely an analysis of the user’s interactions with each other to create predictions on social information. Even when considering that the position distribution is performed using a “kernel density estimation function,” since the function is claimed broadly (i.e., saying that a particular formula is used to generate the outcome without specifying the details in which the formula is utilized), it is still part of the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior.” Finally, because the results of the data processing are merely outputting “location-based content relevant to the activity area of the user” this is merely a display of the results of the abstract idea. The output merely conveys information to a user, thus, it is no more than a set of rules, instructions or teachings to an individual. Therefore, the claim language in bold, at least recites an abstract idea under ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ and are to be further analyzed under Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the following the additional elements:
- An information processing apparatus comprising: in claim 1
-at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; in claim 1
-at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: in claim 1
- executing by a computer: in claim 9
- A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to... in claim 10
-user interface in claims 1, 9, 10
The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea of ‘estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, estimate a hobby and a preference of the user of the other account, generate an activity area distribution of the user by combining the first position distribution and second position distribution, and provide location-based content relevant to the activity area of the user” is merely instructed to be performed on generic computing components such as a memory, processor, computer, user interface and a non-transitory storage medium. It is evident in at least paragraph [0017] of the specification that these computer components are intended to be any computer capable of performing the functions, therefore, no improvement to a computer or a technical field has been implemented in the claims, which is one of the consideration in MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the additional elements, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even when considering the claims as a whole. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the following the additional elements:
- An information processing apparatus comprising: in claim 1
-at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; in claim 1
-at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: in claim 1
- executing by a computer: in claim 9
- A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to... in claim 10
-user interface in claims 1, 9, 10
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computing devices such as a user interface, memory, processor, computer, and a non-transitory storage medium to perform the abstract idea of “estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, estimate a hobby and a preference of the user of the other account, generate an activity area distribution of the user by combining the first position distribution and second position distribution, and provide location-based content relevant to the activity area of the user” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 9, and 10 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-3, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are also given the full two part analysis, with the additional elements being considered individually and in an ordered combination as a whole, resulting in the following determinations.
Claims 2, 11, and 16 recite more of the same abstract idea by further limiting the abstract idea to include the steps of estimating a post place, estimating a (time) period in which a user is active in the activity area. It also further limits “public information” to specifically “post material being posted in on the internet by the user.” This is more of the same abstract idea since it merely “manages personal behavior,” by estimating the activity of a user at an area using known information about the post. Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, therefore nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or provides significantly more. Accordingly, claims 2, 11 and 16 are patent ineligible.
Claims 3, 12, and 17 recite more of the same abstract idea because it further limits the abstract idea to specifically estimating whether a location is the user’s birthplace based on the features of the user’s language and the features of the language in the area. This comparison of a user’s speech with the speech of an area is merely a method of managing personal behavior as it merely analyzes a user’s interactions to process and output information. Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, therefore nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or provides significantly more. Accordingly, claims 3, 12, and 17 are patent ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 16 and 17 distinguish over the prior art and would be allowable if the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1, 9, and 10 now recite:
estimate an activity area of a user of an account of social media, based on public information being published on the Internet in association with the account, wherein the public information includes information indicating a connection between accounts on the social media; and
estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, based on the public information;
determine a user of another account related to the activity area;
estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, based on the public information being published on the Internet in association with the user of the other account having a predetermined relationship with the user of the account;
estimate that the activity area coinciding with a birthplace of the user of the other account is a birthplace of the user of the account;
estimate a relationship between the user of the account and the activity area, based on the public information being published on the Internet in association with the other account;
estimate a hobby and a preference of the user of the other account, based on the public information being published on the Internet in association with the other account;
estimate a relationship between a user of the account and the activity area, based on a degree of variations in a hobby and a preference of a plurality of other users having a predetermined relationship with the user of the account;
estimate that the activity area is a birthplace of the user of the account when a hobby and a preference of the plurality of other users vary at a reference level or more;
estimate that the activity area is not a birthplace of the user of the account when the hobby and the preference of the plurality of other users do not vary at a reference level or more;
generate, using a kernel density estimation function, a first position distribution based on a plurality of post locations included in the public information in association with the account of the user;
generate, using the kernel density estimation function, a second position distribution based on residence locations of the plurality of other users;
generate an activity area distribution of the user by combining the first position distribution and the second position distribution;
control, based on the generated activity area distribution, a user interface to provide location-based content relevant to the activity area of the user, wherein the location-based content comprises a heat map displayed on a regional map, and the heat map indicates the activity area distribution.
The claim limitations that define over the prior art of record are as follows:
-estimate that the activity area is a birthplace of a user of the account when a hobby and a preference of users of a plurality of the determined another accounts vary at a reference level or more,
-and estimate that the activity area is not a birthplace of a user of the account when a hobby and a preference of users of a plurality of the determined another accounts do not vary at a reference level or more.
The prior art of record, particularly Chakrabarti teaches a system that estimates the activity area is a birthplace of a user based on shared hobbies and preferences of other users, however Chakrabarti does not teach or suggest the condition that the area is a birthplace when a hobby and preference of users of a plurality of the determined another accounts vary at a reference level or more. The BRI of this limitation, in other words, includes determining the variance between the hobbies and interests of a user and the hobbies and interests of their friends in that particular region. If the variance is high, that there are wide variety of hobbies and interests, then the system concludes that this must be where the user was born, because these friends were made through proximity and not shared interests. When the variance is low, indicating that there are a low variety of hobbies and interests, the system concludes that this is not a birthplace, because this likely an area such as a college, or workplace, where individuals are more likely to make friends based on shared hobbies, interests, and preferences compared to their hometown. This is premised is based on paragraphs [0068-0069] of the instant specification, which presume that the trend exists. Given this BRI, neither Chakrabarti, nor the prior art of record yielded in a concept search for this specific topic teach these steps above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim objections to claims 10, and 16-20 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
In regards to applicant’s remarks over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. On page 13 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that the amended limitations of “using a kernel density estimation function...” are not merely estimating and describe a specific technical process that applies a specific nonparametric technique (kernel density estimation) to specific data (post locations and residence locations). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are not recited with enough specificity to be considered an additional element because it merely uses “kernel density estimation” as a black box to generate the position distribution as the intended output, while using post locations as the input. In the scope of the claim language, it recites any use of kernel density estimation to generate the outputs, but does not recite the steps at any level of specificity to be considered more than mere rules, or instructions to carry out the abstract idea. Furthermore, since the inputs are still related to human activity, or interactions, such as the plurality of post locations, it is still part of the abstract idea subcategory of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between individuals.” Therefore, since the kernel density estimation is merely used in the process of carrying out the overall abstract idea, the claims as a whole still at least recite the abstract idea, especially when considering that the output of the claims is merely a display of the data processing, “provide location-based content relevant to the activity area of the user, wherein the location-based content comprises a heat map displayed on a regional map, and the heat map indicates the activity area distribution.” This is merely a display of the results of the data collection and processing, and is thus still part of the same abstract idea. Furthermore, the applicant argues that “controlling a user interface to present location-based content...uses the analysis results to directly influence the operation of the computer system, because the features control the user interface to present more relevant information to the user.” However, this argument is not persuasive because it merely recites the user interface at a high level of generality such that it is equivalent to “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims do not add any additional functionality to a computer or recite limitations that are anything more than using the device in its ordinary capacity to perform economic tasks. Therefore, utilizing a user interface to provide location based content is no more than instruction a generic computer to display the results of the analysis. Thus, the applicant’s argument that “this constitutes a specific improvement to computer functionality by enabling the system to more efficiently provide useful and contextually relevant information,” is not persuasive because the information being more useful/contextually relevant is not an improvement to the technology itself but is an improvement to the abstract idea. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II),
“However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Therefore, though there may be an improvement to how the information is being processed, this is merely an improvement to the abstract idea and not an improvement to technology. Furthermore, without admission, the applicant’s arguments of “these features could not be performed as a mental process and are not directed to mathematical concepts” are not relevant because the rejection categorizes the claims under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Furthermore, the applicant asserts that claim 1 is patent eligible in step 2B of the Alice test because the prior art does not teach or suggest the features of independent claim 1, thus providing an “inventive concept” and not appended well-understood, routine or conventional activities. However, this argument is not persuasive because the search for an inventive concept is not relevant to the novelty or non-obviousness determination. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(I),
“Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).”
Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive in view of the teachings above. Furthermore, the rejection does not rely on an assertion that the additional elements recite well-understood, routine, conventional activity, therefore, there is no burden on the examiner to provide a factual determination to support such a conclusion. Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments regarding patent eligibility are persuasive and the rejections to claims 1, 9, 10 and its dependent claims 2-3, 11, 12, 16 and 17 stand under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Kalis et al. (US 9602965 B1) discloses estimating a user’s location based on social networking post information, using a kernel density distribution.
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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626