DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
This action is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/30/2025.
Claim 1 has been amended and remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claim 1 in the previous office action has been maintained.
Foreign Priority
The Examiner/office acknowledges that the applicant claims foreign priority to the date 04/04/2022.
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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under Step 2A claim 1 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to claim 1, the independent claim (claim 1) is directed to managing and organizing users data (e.g. user consents to using provided information; receiving consent of provided information from user; collection of my data from user ). These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors; managing personal behavior such as teaching and following rules or instructions. The commercial interactions is entered into when the user profits and consumption trends are monitored. The managing personal behavior is entered into when the user provides receipts and when the farmer uses consumption trend to select croups. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions and managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – terminals, units, model, provision server, wireless communication device, browser, display, server, network , blockchain, Hyperledger Fabric, secure multimedia card, database, module, artificial neural network
to perform the claim steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of providing and processing information at pg. 6) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The independent claims are additionally directed to claim elements terminals, units, model, provision server, wireless communication device, browser, display, server, network , blockchain, Hyperledger Fabric, secure multimedia card, database, module, artificial neural network. When considered individually, the terminals, units, model, provision server, wireless communication device, browser, display, server, network , blockchain, Hyperledger Fabric, secure multimedia card, database, module, artificial neural network claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements.
The Examiner would like to point the Applicant, to the
Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, “where the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the climbed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible”
The specification must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology. As such the specification could identify a technical problem and explain how the specification provides a technical solution.
Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at ([pg. 6]) “one unit may be realized using two or more pieces of hardware, and two or more units may be realized using one piece of hardware. Meanwhile, “unit” is not limited to software or hardware, and a “unit” may be configured to reside in an addressable storage medium or may be configured to regenerate one or more processors. Accordingly, as an example, “unit” refers to components such as software components, object-oriented software components, class components, and task components, processes, functions, attributes, procedures, subroutines, segments of program code, drivers, firmware, microcode, circuits, data, databases, data structures, tables, arrays, and variables. The functions provided within the components and “units” may be combined into a smaller number of components and “units,” or may be further separated into additional components and “units.” In addition, the components and “units” may be implemented to regenerate one or more CPUs within a device or secure multimedia card.” [pg. 30] “Computer-readable media may be any available media that can be accessed by a computer, and include both volatile and non-volatile media, and removable and non-removable media. In addition, the computer-readable media may include all computer storage media. The computer storage media include both volatile and non-volatile media and removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data.” ([pg. 31]) “those skilled in the art will understand that the present invention may be easily modified into other specific forms without changing its technical idea or essential features. Therefore, the embodiments described above should be understood in all respects as illustrative and not restrictive.”
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, the general use of machine learning techniques does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims discloses the defining of machine learning models at a high-level of generality, without incorporating any updating (i.e. training) limitations. Therefore, currently, the machine learning recited in the claims is solely used a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 09/30/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 7-12 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
at least one user consents to information provision of at least one type of MyData and receives profit distribution when the at least one type of MyData of which information is provided is utilized, wherein the at least one user consent information and purchase details to a MyDat service;
uploads target data for which information provision is required and receives MyData corresponding to target data, to receive MyData corresponding to the target data; and
a MyData includes:
receives consent to the information provision of the at least one type of MyData from the at least one user, wherein the consent confirmation is to store a unique identification code associated with at least one the user terminal and verify consent information stored;
collects the at least one type of MyData from the at least one user, collects the at least one type of MyData in the medical, financial, energy, distribution, transportation, small business, welfare, living, and academic fields and stores the MyData;
extracts MyData corresponding to the target data for which the information provision is required and provides the MyData when the target data is received from the, performs access control using the unique identification code and restricts unauthorized extraction of MyData;
distributes profits to that has provided MyData;
performs consumption trend analysis using the at least one type of MyData and distributes profits that has provided MyData used for the consumption trend analysis when there is a purchase for the consumption trend analysis, to analyze consumption patterns and trends by integrating market variables, consumption data, and external factors affecting demand and supply;
collects the at least one type of MyData on a monthly basis and provides monthly MyData when the MyData is provided;
induces payment for a MyData subscription service for the enterprise terminal that continuously requires the monthly MyData provided on a monthly basis, and distributes profits to the user on a monthly basis;
provides a coupon that is an offer corresponding to a consumption pattern in consideration of the consumption pattern when the at least one type of MyData is MyData in a financial field;
provides a breakdown of a profit amount and details of utilized MyData to the at least one user on a monthly basis when the MyData of the at least one user is utilized;
receives a provision range of the at least one type of MyData from the at least one user; and
scans and uploads a purchase details receipt from the at least one user or transmits purchase details data in a case where consent is given to the use of a purchase details receipt when requests that additional purchase details be included in the MyData used for the consumption trend analysis, and distributes profits according to provision of the purchase details data the at least one user that provided the purchase details data,
search for a photo of a purchase details receipt in a photo storage folder on the at least one user when the purchase details receipt is photographed by the at least one user;
upload the photo of the retrieved purchase details receipt or collects text data read by optical character recognition (OCR) as the purchase details data; and
delete the photo of the receipt from the at least one user in order to ensure that a user does not have to separately delete the photo of the receipt and does not have to search the photo storage folder again to read purchase details data once uploaded,
encrypts the MyData using a homomorphic encryption algorithm to allow computation on encrypted data without decrypting the MyData, thereby maintaining confidentiality during processing;
records access to the MyData and corresponding consent on the private blockchain or Hyperledger Fabric to ensure only authorized access and improve traceability of data usage;
store encrypted MyData and ensures access control by verifying a digital signature associated with a the unique identification code stored in the private blockchain to prevent unauthorized access and ensure data integrity;
the at least one type of MyData includes data in the medical, financial, energy, distribution, transportation, small business, welfare, living, and academic fields, and
a farmer uses a consumption trend to select crops, set a selection criterion when selecting the crops by considering a demand side for identifying how the consumption trend has changed over time and a direction that the consumption trend is to change, a supply side for determining a production amount of each crop supplied to a market, and a market situation side for identifying substitutes and complement relationships or the possibility of processed products that externally influences a relevant market,
perform analysis utilizing partial market equilibrium on the crops to be analyzed on the demand side and the supply side,
perform analysis utilizing computational general equilibrium based on general market equilibrium by considering even a market for a final product on the market situation side,
use an expected utility hypothesis (EUH) to estimate expected utility of profits derived from each crop using a mean-variance model,
convert the estimated expected utility of profits into time series data,
select the crops that maximize predicted utility of profits from among a plurality of crops using an artificial neural network, the artificial neural network comprising an input layer, an output layer, and a single hidden layer between the input layer and the output layer, the artificial neural network being configured to output the predicted utility of profits corresponding to the time series data.
to select crops that provide the greatest expected utility of profits among a plurality of crops.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing and organizing users data, which constitutes methods related to commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors; managing personal behavior such as teaching and following rules or instructions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The modules are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps of:
“the claimed system provides for consumption trend analysis that, when applied to the selection of crops at a farm, allows for a farmer to select crops that maximize predicted utility of profits from among a plurality of crops.”
seems to describe a “particular way” of managing and organizing users data and not a computer function. Furthermore, the argument “allows for a farmer to select crops that maximize predicted utility of profits from among a plurality of crops” the Applicant is admitting that the application is directed to improving the user’s experience and not the system or any type of computer or structure.
The Applicant is basically relying on the system elements as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those system elements aren't really utilized in any particular manner, and the specification indicates that at 0077 " Computer-readable media may be any available media that can be accessed by a computer, and include both volatile and non-volatile media, and removable and non-removable media… The computer storage media include both volatile and non-volatile media and removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data.”, which indicates the lack of particularity in the application to the technological environment.
Lastly, the Examiner would like to direct the Applicant to, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. case; where the DDR invention was necessarily rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology. Rather, Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem—for accessing and managing users’ data—rather than a technological one. Indeed, the computing elements recited in Applicant’s claims are merely generic in nature and are insufficient to shift the focus or thrust of Applicant 's invention. Moreover, Applicant’s claims resemble a web administrator scheme for solving a business solution with merely generic computer implementation
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which implementing services on behalf of a provider will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dhillon et al., U.S. Pub. 20210256631, (discussing the modeling of the total life cycle of crops).
Klavins, U.S. Pub. 20130185104, (discussing the distribution and maximizing of profits for crops).
Strachan, W.O. Pub. 2009046396, (discussing the planning and tracking for crops).
Englard et al., U.S. Pub. 20220309595, (discussing the analyzing of different crop metrics for trends such as ROI model).
Lezoche et al., Agri-food 4.0: A Survey Of The Supply Chains And Technologies For The Future Agriculture, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166361519307584, Computers in industry, 2020 (discussing the modeling of the total life cycle of farm, which includes the crops profitability).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
UCHE BYRD
Examiner
Art Unit 3624
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624