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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-13 have been amended. Claim 9 is canceled. Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that updating the congeniality degree of congeniality of the first user to the second user based on parameters obtained from sensor data does not represent an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. The calculation of a plurality of parameters from the sensor data, wherein the plurality of parameters includes a temporal change in a smile of the first user, a change in the heart rate of the first user, and a smile co-occurrence time in which the first user and the second user smile together, and subsequently updating the congeniality degree of congeniality based on the plurality of parameters directly corresponds to both certain methods or organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships). The human activity of the users (measured by sensor data) is being monitored in order to determine whether the users who are using a shared service together are congenial. Further, the claim limitations directly describe the observation and evaluation of data (sensor data), making a judgment or opinion (congeniality) based on the observed and evaluated data, and updating the congeniality degree based on the data, which directly correspond to mental processes. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claimed features amount to an improvement in technology by providing a system or method that updates congeniality degrees of congeniality to each user of the plurality of users, thereby enhancing real-time performance of the system, reducing a processing load on the system, and ensuring security. Examiner disagrees. The alleged enhancement of the system is merely the enhancement of the judicial exception (the observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, and management of human activity) and at best indicates an improvement the judicial exception itself and not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., managing personal interactions, observation, evaluation, etc.) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim 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. Similar to Trading Technologies, Applicant’s alleged improvement is merely an improvement in the judicial exception. The alleged problem is not a technical problem, but merely a problem in a business process or method of matching users. Using parameters obtained during service to match users correspond to the judicial exception of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Regarding the reduction of a processing load, reducing a processing load is similar to reducing CPU usage, thus reducing computing overhead. Computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time or memory required to perform the specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP §2106.05(f). Additionally, according to applicant’s specification the reduction of the burden is placed on the sharing service providers and users, which further indicates an improvement in user convenience instead of computers or technology (See Spec. [0010]-[0011], [0016], [0043], [0046]. The specification does not indicate reducing a processing load on a server. Thus, examiner also notes that the alleged improvement is stated in a conclusory manner without providing sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (MPEP §2106.04(d)(1)).
Lastly, Applicant argues that claims 1 recites features that that are not conventional, and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees. Whether the additional elements ae well-understood, routine conventional activity (“WURC”) is only one consideration under step 2B. Additional limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer; and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 1 does 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. 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 is collecting data to transmit to a server 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 to the server 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 claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-8 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 1-8, 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: storing 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], 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;[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 a congeniality degree of congeniality, of the first user, to a second user of the plurality of users based on the generated first congeniality information, wherein the first user and the second user have not shared a specific service in past; 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 use schedule is transmitted based on a first service request from the first user and the congeniality degree of congeniality, and the first congeniality information corresponds to a congeniality between the first user and the second user of the plurality of users; calculate a plurality of parameters from the sensor data, wherein the plurality of parameters includes a temporal change in a smile of the first user, a change in the heart rate of the first user, and a smile co-occurrence time in which the first user and the second user smile together; and update the congeniality degree of congeniality based on the plurality of parameters. The invention and claims are 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 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 circuitry configured to store a plurality of congeniality information, a storage, a plurality of sensors including a camera, microphone, and living body sensor, a service information providing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 13), and a computer (claim 13). The additional elements of circuitry configured to store a plurality of congeniality information, a storage, a service information providing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a 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 2-8, 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 2-8, 10, and 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 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 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; calculate a plurality of parameters from the sensor data, wherein the plurality of parameters includes a temporal change in a smile of the first user, a change in the heart rate of the first user, and a smile co-occurrence time in which the first user and the second user smile together; and update the congeniality degree of congeniality based on the plurality of parameters. The limitations 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 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; calculate a plurality of parameters from the sensor data, wherein the plurality of parameters includes a temporal change in a smile of the first user, a change in the heart rate of the first user, and a smile co-occurrence time in which the first user and the second user smile together; and update the congeniality degree of congeniality based on the plurality of parameters. The limitations overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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, 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628