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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Followings are Applicant’s argument and Examiner’s response:
Applicant argues:
Claim 19 has been amended to more particularly define the claimed subject matter. Support for this amendment can be found, for example, in Fig. 9 and paragraphs [0028], [0030], [0078], and [0085]-[0098] of the specification as originally filed. No new matter has been added by this amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
In the outstanding Office Action, claim 19 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rejection, to the extent the Examiner considers it still applicable to the amended claim, is respectfully traversed as explained below.
Claim 19 has been amended to recite "[a]n assistance control method performed by at least one processor and at least one memory in an assistance control apparatus" and indicate that the claimed functions are performed by the at least one processor and the at least one memory. In addition, claim 19 has been further amended to recite "performing, by the at least one processor, control to generate a control signal to cause the user terminal to output the warning" (emphasis added), which corresponds to the feature, "a warning control unit that causes the user terminal to output a warning," recited in claims 1 and 20, which are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Contrary to the assertion that claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea, it does not fall under this judicial exception because it cannot be practically applied in the human mind. The claimed limitations do not fall within the "mental process," as asserted in the Office Action, which is one of the groups of abstract ideas. The 2019 Revised Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance notes that the judicial exception does not apply when the claims recite actions that cannot be practically applied in the mind. As explained above, claim 19 now recites that at least one processor and at least one memory perform the claimed subject matter. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the subject matter recited in claim 19 is not an abstract idea and cannot practically be done in the human mind as a mental process. Thus, the claim 19 is eligible at Step 2A, Prong One, because it does not recite a judicial exception.
Even assuming, in arguendo, that the claimed subject matter does not pass the test of Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant respectfully submits that it passes the test of Step 2A, Prong Two because the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04, "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field."
It is asserted in the Office Action that "[t]he claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The subject matter recited in claim 19 is applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, this claim, when considered as a whole, transforms the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, demonstrably improving the timing to cause the user terminal to output the warning based on the movement information about the user. With the features recited in claim 19, as amended, the user may be able to stop safely because the user terminal is controlled to output the warning at the appropriate timing for the user.
Therefore, even assuming, in arguendo, that the claimed subject matter is considered to be directed to a judicial exception, Applicant respectfully submits that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provides sufficient practical advantages.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 19 is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Applicant argues that amended claim 19 is not directed to a judicial exception because the claim is performed by at least one processor and at least one memory, and therefore cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention improves the timing of warning output and therefore provides a practical technological improvement.
These arguments are not persuasive.
1. Use of Generic Processor/Memory Does Not Alter the Eligibility Determination
The mere recitation that the method is performed by “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” does not, by itself, take the claim outside the scope of a judicial exception. Eligibility is determined based on the character of the claim as a whole, not on whether generic computer components are nominally included in the claim language.
Here, the processor and memory are recited only as generic computing tools that perform their ordinary functions of acquiring, storing, processing, and outputting information. The claim does not recite any particular improvement to processor architecture, memory operation, data handling mechanisms, or user terminal functionality.
Accordingly, Applicant’s reliance on the mere presence of computer implementation is not sufficient to establish eligibility.
2. The Claim Recites a Rules-Based Data Processing Scheme Using Generic Computer Implementation
Properly viewed as a whole, claim 19 is directed to a rules-based scheme for controlling warning timing based on historical user movement response data.
Specifically, the claim:
acquires information regarding user movement after a warning is issued;
stores movement information derived from that response behavior;
adjusts future warning timing based on the stored movement information; and
generates a control signal to implement the adjusted warning timing.
This sequence reflects a data collection → data storage → rule-based adjustment → output control workflow. Such a structured decision-making framework constitutes a form of abstract information processing using rules applied to collected behavioral data, implemented here using generic computing components.
The claim does not recite any specific technological mechanism for how the timing adjustment is implemented beyond the abstract instruction to “adjust timing based on movement information.”
3. “Control Signal / Warning Control Unit” Argument (Allowed Claims 1 and 20)
Applicant asserts that the amended limitation:
“performing … control to generate a control signal to cause the user terminal to output the warning”
corresponds to the “warning control unit” recited in allowed apparatus claims 1 and 20, and therefore supports eligibility.
This argument is not persuasive.
First, claims 1 and 20 are directed to different statutory classes (apparatus and computer-readable medium claims) and are evaluated independently under 35 U.S.C. §101. Allowance or eligibility of those claims does not control the analysis of method claim 19.
Second, the limitation in claim 19 is purely functional and result-oriented, merely requiring that a control signal be generated to cause a user terminal to output a warning. The claim does not recite any specific technical mechanism for:
generating the control signal,
structuring or formatting the signal,
transmitting the signal,
or controlling how the user terminal processes the signal.
Thus, the limitation in claim 19 does not reflect a technical improvement in signaling or control architecture, but instead merely recites execution of the abstract timing decision using generic output control functionality.
Accordingly, the similarity in functional outcome between claims does not establish that claim 19 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
4. No Integration Into a Practical Technological Improvement
Applicant argues that the claim improves safety by improving warning timing. This argument is not persuasive as a basis for integration into a practical application.
An improvement to the accuracy or effectiveness of a decision rule (i.e., when to issue a warning) is not, by itself, a technical improvement to a computer or other technology. MPEP §2106.04(d) makes clear that an improvement must be directed to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or a technical field.
Here, the alleged improvement resides in:
the logic for determining timing of a warning, based on historical movement behavior.
However, the claim does not recite:
any improvement in processor operation,
any improvement in memory structure or data storage architecture,
any improvement in communication protocols,
any improvement in sensor or detection technology,
or any improvement in the user terminal’s technical functioning.
Instead, the claim uses generic computing components to apply an abstract rule governing when a warning should be output.
Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical technological improvement.
5. The “Cannot Be Performed in the Human Mind” Argument Is Not Dispositive
Applicant asserts that the recitation of processor and memory necessarily excludes mental performance.
This argument is not persuasive. The proper inquiry is not whether every limitation can be performed mentally in isolation, but whether the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea implemented using generic computing technology.
Here, the core operations—collecting behavioral response data, storing it, and adjusting future outputs based on that data—are fundamentally information processing and decision-making operations implemented using conventional computer components. The presence of a processor does not change the underlying character of the claimed subject matter.
6. “Not a Mental Process / Technical Improvement” Argument
Applicant further argues that claim 19 improves warning timing and enhances safety.
This argument is not persuasive.
An improvement to the timing logic or decision rule for issuing a warning, without a corresponding improvement to computer functionality or other technology, is not a technological improvement for purposes of §101. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computing efficiency, architecture, communication systems, or device operation.
Rather, the claim defines a rules-based approach for determining when a warning should be issued based on historical user response data, implemented using generic computing components.
7. No Additional Elements Provide an Inventive Concept (Step 2B)
The additional elements, including:
at least one processor,
at least one memory,
assistance control apparatus,
user terminal, and
control signal generation,
are all recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary and expected functions.
The specification further confirms that these components are implemented using conventional computing hardware and standard program execution techniques (see, e.g., Fig. 9 and paragraphs describing CPU, RAM, and program execution).
Individually and in combination, these elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely apply generic computing technology to implement a rules-based data processing scheme.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim 19 remains directed to an abstract idea implemented using generic computer components and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites an assistance control method comprising: acquiring information indicating distance or time that a user moves after a user terminal outputs a warning until movement of the user stops; storing movement information based on the acquired information; adjusting timing to cause the user terminal to output a warning based on the movement information; and generating a control signal to cause the user terminal to output the warning.
Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
The claim, when considered as a whole and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to a rules-based data processing scheme for controlling the timing of a warning based on historical user response behavior data.
Specifically, the claim collects post-warning movement response data, stores that data as movement information, applies a rule derived from the stored data to adjust future warning timing, and then triggers output of a warning via a control signal. This sequence reflects data collection → data retention → rule-based decision-making → output control, which is a mental and administrative information processing scheme implemented on generic computing components.
“Control Signal Generation” Limitation
The limitation of:
“performing … control to generate a control signal to cause the user terminal to output the warning”
is recited purely in functional and result-oriented terms. It merely requires that a signal be generated to cause a user terminal to output a warning, without reciting:
any specific signaling protocol,
any particular communication architecture,
any defined data structure for the control signal,
any specific timing or synchronization mechanism,
or any technical implementation of how the user terminal processes or executes the signal.
Accordingly, this limitation amounts to generic post-decision implementation of the abstract timing rule on a conventional user terminal, and does not impose any meaningful technological constraint on the abstract idea.
No Integration into a Practical Application
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements—including “at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” and a “user terminal”—are recited at a high level of generality and are used merely as tools to implement the abstract data processing scheme.
The claim does not recite:
any improvement to processor operation or architecture,
any improvement to memory storage or retrieval,
any improvement to communication or signaling technology,
any improvement to user terminal operation,
or any other technical solution to a technical problem.
Instead, the claim uses generic computer components to implement a rule for adjusting warning timing based on historical behavioral response data, and then generically executes that rule via a control signal.
No “Significantly More” (Step 2B)
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
the processor performs routine data processing functions (acquiring, storing, computing, issuing instructions),
the memory performs conventional data storage,
the user terminal performs conventional output functions,
the control signal generation is a generic instruction to execute a decision already made by the abstract rule.
Individually and in combination, these elements merely apply the abstract idea using generic computing components in their ordinary capacities, without any inventive concept or unconventional technological implementation.
Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea and does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 19 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 20 are allowed.
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 HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights