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 the Claims
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 7, and 9 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Claims Recite An Abstract Idea Under Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity nor mental processes. Examiner disagrees.
Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework evaluates whether an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. Applicant’s specification recites:
[0003] Conventionally, with respect to a service in which a plurality of persons shares the same time and space, not only contents of a service but also congeniality to a sharing partner often influences whether the service gives each person an enjoyable time or an uncomfortable time.
[0004] With respect to technologies for providing a sharing service, for example, the undermentioned patent document 1 discloses a riding-together vehicle searching system that is capable of searching for a customer who is congenial to a user. In such a vehicle searching system, a person having close properties is recommended as a riding together person. Specifically, matching is performed on the basis of: whether or not the distinction of sex, the age, hobbies, or the family structure agrees with that of the user; whether or not purchase behavior (a time zone for visiting a store, and purchased items) is the same as that of the user; or whether or not a person is near as a geographical condition (a route to a destination).
[0005] In addition, the undermentioned patent document 2 discloses a service in which a community to participate is determined on the basis of user relation information indicating relations among a plurality of users. The user relation information includes user's mutual subjective evaluations among the plurality of users (evaluations related to, for example, a character of a partner, congeniality to oneself, and accuracy of partner's information). In the system described in the patent document 2, a score of each community is calculated on the basis of the user relation information, and a community to participate, which matches the user, is recommended.
[0006] Moreover, the undermentioned patent document 3 discloses a riding-together taxi system that allocates a taxi to patients who desire riding together at the time of returning home. In such a system, riding-together desiring patients, the in-hospital treatment completion time of which belongs to the same time zone, and the residence of which belongs to the same area, are divided, on a riding capacity basis, into groups. Each divided group is set as a riding-together patient group of the same taxi. In this case, a riding-together patient group can be set in consideration of a request for a vehicle type having special facilities, or smoking permitted or no smoking. In the case of an airborne infectious disease (for example, influenza), such a patient can be excluded from the riding-together patient group.
[0010] However, the systems in the prior art require a large amount of user information when a service is used, and impose a large burden on the user side. In addition, since it is necessary to consider congeniality for combinations of many users, a burden imposed on the service provider side also increases.
[0011] Accordingly, the present disclosure proposes a service information providing system that is capable of fulfilling various service requests on the basis of obtained congeniality information of sharing service users without imposing a burden on each user and a sharing service provider, and proposes a control method thereof.
The cited portions of the specification are highlighted to show that the claimed invention is drawn towards fulfilling service requests on the basis of obtained congeniality information. Further, the claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, behavior) as evidenced by the claim limitations detailing monitoring data indicating congeniality or users that are using a shared service. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by the limitations detailing the observation and evaluation of data from sensors and data pertaining to the congeniality of users using or sharing a service. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments regarding acquiring sensor data from a camera, microphone and living body sensor is unpersuasive. First, the sensors are additional elements are considered under Step 2A Prong Two to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application merely because the claim recites the additional elements of the plurality of sensors including a camera, microphone, and living body sensor. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (monitoring user data to determine congeniality). The sensors also amount to insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere data gathering. The claim limitations related to the storage, generation, and analysis of the congeniality information directly correspond to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity and are not inextricably tied to a machine. Instead, a computer is merely using to implement the limitations corresponding to the judicial exception. It is important to note that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See also MPEP §2106.05(b).
For the reasons set forth above, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
The Judicial Exception Is Not Integrated Into A Practical Application Under Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees.
The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: (see MPEP §2106.04(d))
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
In the applicant’s claimed invention, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application merely because the claim recites the additional elements of a service information providing system comprising circuitry, a storage, a plurality of sensors including a camera, microphone, and living body sensor, non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 13), and a computer (claim 13). The additional elements of a service information providing comprising circuitry configured to store a plurality of congeniality information, a storage, a service information providing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium and computer, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Further, the plurality of sensors including a camera, microphone, and living body sensor amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (monitoring user data to determine congeniality). The sensors also amount to insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere data gathering. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s assertion that the claimed are integrated into a concrete real-world implementation are unpersuasive for patent eligibility purposes. This is an argument for utility. Eligibility (subject matter eligibility) asks "what" is being claimed—whether the invention falls into a category that the patent system protects. Utility asks "if" the invention works and provides a specific, substantial, and credible benefit. Thus, applicant’s argument appears to be misplaced.
Applicant’s assertion that the congeniality information is applied to govern allocation of the seats in a [ride-sharing] vehicle constitutes a practical implementation is also unpersuasive. Applicant is merely reciting the result which further indicates that the claims correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(a). As previously indicated, the additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, and insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the reasons set forth above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The Claims Do Not Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient To Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception Under Step 2B.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a useful application and thus amounts to significantly more under Step 2B. Examiner disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that, under step 2B, whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception also include: (see MPEP §2106.05)
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (monitoring user data to determine congeniality). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity, the various living body sensors (living-body sensor, a camera, and a microphone) that are collecting data to transmit for observation amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see Flood 2016/0371502, ¶0003 disclosing that it is known from the conventional arts to distribute a plurality of sensors over a plurality of corresponding localities and to collect corresponding sensor data from the distributed sensors at some kind of central entity. Usually, the latter central entity is a server that receives all the sensor data from the sensors as data sources via one or more networks and stores the received sensor data in a database. A user can then access the database for retrieving the raw data from the sensors or process the sensor data in form of various kinds of analyses or reports). The sensors collecting and transmitting sensor data amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Applying the sensor data to a ridesharing environment to determine congeniality of passengers/rides merely amount to linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Again, the argument regarding “useful application” is an argument regarding utility and not patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, and 11 recite a system (i.e. machine), claim 12 recites a method (i.e. process), and claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1-8 and 10-13 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite the limitations: store a plurality of congeniality information indicating congeniality between a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users shares a same space in a same time zone, the plurality of congeniality information is based on sensor data measured at a time of provision of a first service to the plurality of users by a plurality of sensors, the plurality of sensors includes at least one of [a camera] that captures an image of a first user of the plurality of users, [a microphone] that measures voice data of the first user of the plurality of users, or [a living-body sensor] that measures living-body sensor data of the first user of the plurality of users, and the [service information providing system] provides the first service; generate first congeniality information of the plurality of congeniality information by analysis of the sensor data, wherein the analysis of the sensor data includes determination of at least one of a smile time of the first user of the plurality of users from the captured image, a speaking time of the first user of the plurality of users from the voice data, or a heart rate of the first user of the plurality of users from the living-body sensor data; determine that a second user of the plurality of users is uncongenial to the first user based on the generated first congeniality information, wherein the first user and the second user have not shared a specific service in past; and transmit a first use schedule as first service provision information, to the first user of the plurality of users, wherein the first use schedule is for the first service, the first service is a ride-sharing service, the first use schedule is transmitted based on a first service request from the first user and the first congeniality information, in the first use schedule, the first user does not have a seat next to the second user in a same vehicle, and the first congeniality information corresponds to a congeniality between the first user and the second user of the plurality of users. The claimed invention is drawn towards fulfilling service requests on the basis of obtained congeniality information, and the claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, behavior) as evidenced by the claim limitations detailing monitoring data indicating congeniality or users that are using a shared service. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by the limitations detailing the observation and evaluation of data from sensors and data pertaining to the congeniality of users using or sharing a service. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application merely because the claim recites the additional elements of a service information providing system comprising circuitry, a storage, a plurality of sensors including a camera, microphone, and living body sensor, non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 13), and a computer (claim 13). The additional elements of a service information providing comprising circuitry configured to store a plurality of congeniality information, a storage, a service information providing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium and computer, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Further, the plurality of sensors including a camera, microphone, and living body sensor amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (monitoring user data to determine congeniality). The sensors also amount to insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere data gathering. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (monitoring user data to determine congeniality). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the various living body sensors (living-body sensor, a camera, and a microphone) that are collecting data to transmit for observation amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see Flood 2016/0371502, ¶0003 disclosing that it is known from the conventional arts to distribute a plurality of sensors over a plurality of corresponding localities and to collect corresponding sensor data from the distributed sensors at some kind of central entity. Usually, the latter central entity is a server that receives all the sensor data from the sensors as data sources via one or more networks and stores the received sensor data in a database. A user can then access the database for retrieving the raw data from the sensors or process the sensor data in form of various kinds of analyses or reports). The sensors collecting and transmitting sensor data amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-6, 8, 10, and 11 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above and additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 4-6, 8, 10, and 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-13 are would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention is Copeland (US 10,147,325) which discloses a system that customizes rideshares in which passengers are pooled together for transport in the same vehicle based on preferences shared among the users. In Copeland, the users provide biometric information and sets their parameters and preferences, the system then generates a ridesharing profile, and compares the profiles with profiles of other users in the hailed vehicle in order to determine whether to allow or deny the user access to the rideshare vehicle. The prior art reference does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitation or concept that the plurality of congeniality information is based on sensor data measured at a time of provision of a first service to the plurality of users by a plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors includes at least one of a camera that captures an image of a first user of the plurality of users, a microphone that measures voice data of the first user of the plurality of users, or a living-body sensor that measures living-body sensor data of the first user of the plurality of users; generate first congeniality information of the plurality of congeniality information by analysis of the sensor data, wherein the analysis of the sensor data includes determination of at least one of a smile time of the first user of the plurality of users from the captured image, a speaking time of the first user of the plurality of users from the voice data, or a heart rate of the first user of the plurality of users from the living-body sensor data. The limitations appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is related to the applicant’s invention is an article entitled “A Passengers Matching Problem in Ridesharing Systems by Considering User Preference” (Thaithatkul, et. al., 2015). The article discloses formulating a matching model between passengers by considering user preference since user preference is an important factor to enhance the performance and reliability of ridesharing systems. The article does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations or concepts of the plurality of congeniality information is based on sensor data measured at a time of provision of a first service to the plurality of users by a plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors includes at least one of a camera that captures an image of a first user of the plurality of users, a microphone that measures voice data of the first user of the plurality of users, or a living-body sensor that measures living-body sensor data of the first user of the plurality of users; generate first congeniality information of the plurality of congeniality information by analysis of the sensor data, wherein the analysis of the sensor data includes determination of at least one of a smile time of the first user of the plurality of users from the captured image, a speaking time of the first user of the plurality of users from the voice data, or a heart rate of the first user of the plurality of users from the living-body sensor data. The limitations appear to overcome the prior art.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights