DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the argument and amendment filed December 31, 2025.
Claims 1- 6, 8, 12 and 14- 20 are amended.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 are originals.
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 .
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- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1-13 recite a system (machine), claims 14 -19 is a management server, claim 20 is to a method (i.e., a process). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
A system comprising: a management server; a plurality of first terminals corresponding to respective first objects; and a plurality of second terminals corresponding to respective second objects, wherein: the first terminals and the second terminals are configured such that, in accordance with a usage relation being generated between the first objects and the second objects, at least one of the first terminals corresponding to the first objects or the second terminals corresponding to the second objects transmits an association request to the management server, and the association request includes at least a first identifier identifying the first objects and a second identifier identifying the second objects; wherein the management server is configured to; execute authentication processing by sending the first identifier and the second identifier to servers that perform authentication of the corresponding first objects and the corresponding second objects; receive results of the authentication from the servers; accept a setting of a correlative relation between the first objects and the second objects based on the results of the authentication; record the setting of the correlative relation such that the usage relation between the first objects and the second objects is capable of being tracked by processing the recorded setting of the correlative relation, when, in accordance with accepting the setting of the correlative relation by two or more of the association requests with respect to a same first object, settings of two or more correlative relations are established with two or more second objects that are different from each other, with respect to the same first object, set the setting of one correlative relation out of the two or more correlative relations to active, and set the settings of other correlative relations to non-active, in accordance with status information that is obtained from at least one of the first object regarding which settings for the two or more correlative relations are established, or the two or more second objects; execute processing to identify, based on the status information, reported usage- related information to determine whether the active state or the non-active state of the corresponding correlative relations is to be changed, wherein the active state or the non-active state is changed without terminating the corresponding correlative relations; in response to determining a change of state of the corresponding correlative relations, record information indicating the change of state of the corresponding correlative relations; and transmit, as display information, the recorded change of state of the corresponding correlative relations to the at least one terminal.
The abstract idea of claim 14 and 20 are:
A management server comprising a control unit configured to: receive an association request from at least one of a first terminal of a first object or a second terminal of a second object, in accordance with a usage relation being generated between the first object and the second object, wherein the association request includes at least a first identifier identifying the first object and a second identifier identifying the second object; execute authentication processing by sending the first identifier and the second identifier to servers that perform authentication of the corresponding first object and the corresponding second object; receive results of the authentication from the servers; accept a setting of a correlative relation between the first object and the second object based on the results of the authentication; record the setting of the correlative relation such that the usage relation between the first object and the second object is capable of being tracked by processing the recorded setting of the correlative relation; when, in accordance with accepting the setting of the correlative relation by two or more of the association requests with respect to a same first object, settings of two or more correlative relations are established with two or more second objects that are different from each other, with respect to the same first object, set the setting of one correlative relation out of the two or more correlative relations to active, and set the settings of other correlative relations to non-active, in accordance with status information that is obtained from at least one of the first object regarding which settings for the two or more correlative relations are established, or the two or more second objects; execute processing to identify, based on the status information, reported usage-related information to determine whether the active state or the non-active state of the corresponding correlative relations is to be changed, wherein the active state or the non-active state is changed without terminating the corresponding correlative relations; in response to determining a change of state of the corresponding correlative relations, record information indicating the change of state of the corresponding correlative relations; and transmit, as display information, the recorded change of state of the corresponding correlative relations to the at least one terminal.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, to provide a usage information, store information, set, generate, transmit request, execute setting and receive request. Furthermore, a person can respond to an associate request, checkmate settings and activities and non-activities. The management system (Terminals, management server and control unit) is merely generic technology used to generate, set, execute, analyze and transmit request If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including communicating, monitoring, retrieving, capturing and generating a diagnostic data, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1, 14, and 20 recites the following additional elements: a management server, the first terminals and the second terminals, management server, first identifier and the second identifier to servers, Terminal, a control unit.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0018] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per Claim 2 and 15;
The system and management server of claim 1 and 14 above is directed towards, The system according to claim 1, wherein the management server is configured to: The management server according to claim 14, wherein the control unit is configured to: in accordance with the setting of the active correlative relation being established, validate exercise of authority correlated with the corresponding first object via the second object regarding which the active correlative relation is set; and in accordance with the setting of the non-active correlative relation being established, invalidate the exercise of authority associated with the corresponding first object via the second object to which the non-active correlative relation is set. The claims are describing a system that is configured using a management server and control unit to validate an object is active. A person with pen and paper would be able to validate and set an active and inactive activity. Further, a person would be able to identify and set a correlation to an active and inactive exercise. As such, the claim is also directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping. The management server and control unit is merely a generic technology used to execute, identify validate and set an activity to active an inactive. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic technology. As such additional elements are not significantly more or transformative into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mental process groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical
application. The additional elements of claim 2 are,” The management server according to claim 14, wherein the control unit is configured to: in accordance with the setting of the active correlative relation being established, validate exercise of authority correlated with the corresponding first object via the second object regarding which the active correlative relation is set; and in accordance with the setting of the non-active correlative relation being established, invalidate the exercise of authority associated with the corresponding first object via the second object to which the non-active correlative relation is set”. See specification [0006].
The specification specifically states that the additional elements are generic technology to
implement the abstract idea. Management server and control unit is merely described in terms of a solution or outcome. There is no technical element to provide the suppression or how the suppression is technologically accomplished. As such, the claim is not describing a technical improvement, but rather generic technology to implement the abstract idea(s). As such, the additional elements are not transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) same as above.
As per Claim 3;
The system according to claim 1, wherein: the status information includes a selection by the first object; and the active setting of the one correlative relation is constituted by activating the setting of the correlative relation selected by the first object. The claim is also describing a mental process. This is based on the status information which is composed of selection and activation of the settings of the first object. The claim is describing the activation, setting and current state of the first object. A person with pen and paper would be able to provide a selection, activation and setting of an object. As such, the claim is also directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping. See specification [0126].
Step 2(a)(II) and 2(b) see above since this claim describes the selection, setting and activation of an object.
As per Claim 4 and 16;
The system and management server of claim 1 and 14 above is directed towards is directed towards, The system according to claim 1, wherein; the status information includes a report of an execution result of the authentication processing for the first object received via a second terminal from one of the servers; and the active setting of the one correlative relation is constituted by activating the setting of the correlative relation with the second object corresponding to the second terminal that most recently reported the execution result of the authentication processing for the first object. The claim is describing a mental process of elements that could practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. This is based on having a status information that comprises a report, authentication and an activation process. The claim is describing the status information which consists of a report, authentication processing and activation setting. A person with pen and paper would be able to report authentication and activation processing on status information. As such, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) and 2(b) see above since this claim describes the status information.
As per Claim 5 and 17;
The system and management server of claim 1 and 14 above is directed towards is directed towards, The system according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first terminals includes a first positioning module; each of the second terminals includes a second positioning module; the status information includes a first current position measured by the first positioning module of the first terminal corresponding to the first object, and a second current position measured by the second positioning module of the second terminal corresponding to each of the two or more second objects; and the active setting of the one correlative relation is constituted by activating the setting of the correlative relation as to the second object regarding which the second current position of the corresponding second terminal satisfies a condition of the usage relation, with respect to the first current position of the first terminal.
The claims are describing plurality of terminal systems and a module that provides an activation of setting and a measure of the current position of an object. The claim is describing a mental process of elements that could practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. This is based on the setting, positioning, and activating of the object.
A person with pen and paper would be able to provide a usage information and setting activation. As such, the claim is also directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping. The module is merely a generic technology used to measure the current position of an object. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic technology. As such additional elements are not significantly more or transformative into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mental process groupings of abstract ideas. The module system is described in the specification. Specification [0021].
Step 2(a)(II) and 2(b) see above since this claim describes the status information.
As per Claim 6 and 18;
The system and management server of claim 1 and 14 above is directed towards is directed towards, are further describing the abstract idea and includes additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards (as represented in claim 1 and 14), “The system according to claim 1, wherein the management server:
The management server according to claim 14, wherein the control unit is configured after establishing the active state of the correlative relation with a second object of a first predetermined type, lock the setting of the active correlative relation until a predetermined condition is satisfied, so as to further execute prohibition of establishing a setting for another active correlative relation by another second object with respect to the first object regarding which the active correlative relation is set”. The claim is describing a mental process of elements that could practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. This is based on locking a setting until a condition is satisfied. The claim is describing a control system where if a request is accepted from at least a terminal the management system may disregard any other secondary request and not permit the establishment of an active correlative relation setting. A person with pen and paper would be able to regulate and disregard a request when the condition has been satisfied. As such, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping. See specification [0123].
Step 2(a)(II) and 2(b) see above since this claim describes the regulation or locking of settings by the management server.
As per Claim 8 and 19;
The system and management server of claim 1 and 14 above is directed towards is directed towards, The system according to claim 1, wherein the management server is configured to, when a predetermined relation holds between the first object and the second object for which the correlative relation is set: maintain the correlative relation in the active state or the non-active state without terminating the correlative relation, until the predetermined relation is resolved, and after the predetermined relation is resolved, the correlative relation is terminated.
Claim 19; The management server according to claim 14, wherein the control unit is configured to, when a predetermined relation holds between the first object and the second object for which the correlative relation is set: maintain the correlative relation in the active or the non-active state without terminating the correlative relation, until the predetermined relation is resolved, and terminate the correlative relation after the predetermined relation is resolved.
The claims are describing a mental process. This is based on maintaining a setting in an active or inactive state until the correlative relation is resolved before termination. The claim is describing maintaining a set until the predetermined relation is resolved before termination.
The claim is describing a mental process of elements that could practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. A person with pen and paper would be able to maintain a set until the predetermined relation is resolved before termination. As such, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping. The control unit and management server are merely a generic technology used to maintain, regulate and terminate the predetermined relation. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic technology. As such additional elements are not significantly more or transformative into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mental process groupings of abstract ideas. See specification [0018].
Dependent claim 7, 9, 10 and 11, The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with commercial or legal interaction of methods of organizing human activity grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 7: The system according to claim 6, wherein: the first object is a user; the second object of the first predetermined type is a mobile body for public transportation; and the predetermined condition is that payment of fares for use of the mobile body for public transportation is completed.
Claim 9: The system according to claim 8, wherein the predetermined relation is an ownership relation.
Claim 10: The system according to claim 9, wherein: the first object is a user; and the second object is a mobile body owned by the user.
Claim 11: The system according to claim 8, wherein: the first object is a user; the second object is a mobile body rented by the user; and the predetermined relation is that the user rents the mobile body.
The claims are describing a commercial activity and mental process groupings of abstract idea using a payment of fares for public transportation and the interaction with the ownership of the mobile body. See specification [0125].
A person with pen and paper would be able to accept payment. Furthermore, a person would be able interact and rent a mobile body. As such, the claim is also directed towards an abstract idea under commercial or legal interaction of methods of organizing human activity grouping. See specification, [0143].
Step 2(a)(II) and 2(b) see above since this claim describes the rent, payment and ownership of the mobile body.
Dependent claim 12 is directed towards, The system according to claim 1, wherein the management server is further configured to establish the setting of the correlative relation with a second object of a second predetermined type, and then, in accordance with detecting an end of use of the second object, terminate the correlative relation.
The claim is describing a mental process of elements that could practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. This is based on terminating a setting when an end use is detected. The claim is describing a control system where if an end use is detected a termination request follows. A person with pen and paper would be able to terminate a setting when the condition has been satisfied. As such, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping. See specification [0058].
Step 2(a)(II) and 2(b) see above since this claim describes the termination of a setting after end use.
Dependent claim 13 is directed towards, The system according to claim 12, wherein: the first object is a user; the second object is a mobile body; and the second object of the second predetermined type is a mobile body for public transportation. The claim is describing a mental process of elements that could practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. The claim is describing a user utilizing a mobile body for public transportation. A person with pen and paper would be able to utilize a mobile body for public transportation. As such, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping. See specification [0075].
Response to Arguments
Examiner has considered applicants arguments filed on December 31, 2025, regarding the 101 rejections, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process and an abstract idea, and as amended provide an improvement to a technical field.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the aspect pertaining to executing authentication processing, recording the setting of the correlative relation, executing processing to identify, and transmit the recorded change of state, the examiner viewed as steps of the identified abstract idea in the Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis and the management servers and control unit as an additional element in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis. Therefore, the examiner maintains the claims recite a mental process and a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See Applicant specification [0124].
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) Mental processes [] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 19 3, 197 (1978).
Applicant further states that the claims are technical improvements related to providing a technical solution to a technical problem of failing to track accurately the actual usage relations between objects such as between multiple users and a vehicle. Applicant cited [0056] of the specification.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the above cited [0056] is based on maintaining a setting in an active or inactive state until the correlative relation is resolved before termination using a management server and control unit. See specification “Accordingly, through the above arbitration processing, the management server 1 activates the setting of one correlative relation, and sets the settings of the other correlative relations to non-active, in accordance with the status information ST10”. See specification [0056]. These are merely generic technology with no technical improvement rather an improvement to the abstract idea using generic technology.
The Examiner maintains these claims recite an abstract idea.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VICTOR CHIGOZIRIM ESONU whose telephone number is (571)272-4883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5pm.
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, Monfeldt Sarah can be reached on (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, vis it: 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.
/VICTOR CHIGOZIRIM ESONU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights