DETAILED ACTION
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
The office action is in response to the claim amendments and remarks filed on May 7, 2026 for the application filed February 21, 2025 which claims priority to a foreign application filed on March 18, 2022. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14 and 16-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1:
Under step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-2 and 4-6 are directed towards a apparatus (i.e. a machine), which is a statutory category. Claims 7, 9 and 11-13 are directed towards a method (i.e. a process), which is a statutory category. Claims 8, 14 and 16-18 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable recording medium (i.e. a manufacture), which is a statutory category. Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In the instant application, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under step 2A, prong one of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, independent claims 1, 7 and 8 are determined to be directed to an judicial exception because an abstract idea is recited in the claims which fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas. The abstract idea (identified in bold) recited in the representative claim 8 is identified as:
A guidance assistance apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire biological information of a student measured using a wearable terminal worn by the student;
estimate a feeling of the student based on: the acquired biological information, the student's performance in the student's extracurricular activity, and the student's participation status in the student's extracurricular activity;
present condition information including the feeling of the student, together with extracurricular activity information on the student's extracurricular activity, on a user terminal used by a teacher,
associate, for each of a plurality of students, a student image object representing the student with an extracurricular activity object representing the student's extracurricular activity,
present, in a list on the user terminal, each student image object and associated extracurricular activity object;
present, on the user terminal, the student image object in different colors according to a feeling toward the schoolwork; and
present, on the user terminal, the extracurricular activity object in different colors according to a feeling toward the extracurricular activity.
The identified limitations of the abstract idea fall within the subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity related and the sub grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims recite the human activity of providing student guidance by estimating and presenting information of a student, including estimated feelings of a student and extracurricular activity information of a student, which is an activity performed by parents, teachers and guidance counselors during monitoring of a student’s development. For example parents, teachers and guidance counselors routinely estimate feelings of students as they relate to schoolwork and other activities and routinely present this information to others, such as teachers, students, parents during conferences and meetings. Associating students with objects representing the schoolwork and extracurricular activities and detailing what is presented (i.e. a list color coded objects representing feelings towards schoolwork and extracurricular activities) are encompassed by the abstract idea, as this is the human activity of presenting information to a human in a way which allows the human to understand the information.
The identified limitation of “estimate a feeling of the student based on the acquired biological information” falls within the subject matter grouping of mental processes. The estimating is recited at a high level of generality and may be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating student biological information and making an opinion or judgment as to the feeling of the student..
Accordingly, claims 1, 7 and 8 recite an abstract idea under step 2A, prong one.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Under step 2A, prong two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the identified abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application. After evaluation, there is no indication that any additional elements or combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as through: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvements to any other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element that implements the judicial exception with, or uses the judicial exception in connection with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As shown below, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than a recitation of: generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as evidenced below.
The additional elements recited in representative claim 1 are identified in italics as:
A guidance assistance apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire biological information of a student measured using a wearable terminal worn by the student;
an estimation unit configured to estimate a feeling of the student based on the acquired biological information;
a presentation unit configured to present condition information including the feeling of the student, together with extracurricular activity information on the student's extracurricular activity, on a user terminal used by a teacher.
The additional limitations of “a apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit configured to..; an estimation unit configured to…; and a presentation unit configured to…” are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f). The units are recited at a high level of generality and used in their ordinary capacity to receive/acquire information, process/estimate information and display/present information in order to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The additional limitations of “acquire… measured using a wearable terminal worn by the student” and “present… on a user terminal used by a teacher” are determined to be no more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception under MPEP §2106.05(g). The acquiring of information measured from a wearable terminal worn by a student and presenting information on a user terminal of a teacher it the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere necessary data gather and data outputting.
Accordingly, claims 1, 7 and 8 do not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether provide an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements 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 limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f) and insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception under MPEP §2106.05(g). Evidence that acquiring data from terminals and presenting data from terminals is well-understood, routine and conventional is provided by MPEP §2106.05(d), subsection II.
Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements amounts to an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims:
The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. None of these limitations are deemed to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as detailed below:
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 14, the dividing of the condition information into schoolwork and extracurricular activity information is encompassed by the abstract idea as it is a is directed towards a mental processes which can be performed in the human mind using observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions.
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12 and 16-17, the additional limitation of on a “pop-up screen” is determined to be a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field of GUI’s as evidenced by Chu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0270240) and the information presented therein is considered to be encompassed by the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 18 defining the feeling is encompassed by the abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, 1-2, 4-9, 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 regarding claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14 and 16-18 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues under step 2A, prong 2 and 2B that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more by providing a technical improvement to the field of guidance assistance methods and apparatuses.
In response, it is maintained that the claims and specification do not recite a technical problem or a technical solution as providing teachers with information useful for giving guidance tailored to each student with consideration of balancing between schoolwork and extracurricular activities, is not a technical problem, but a problem directed the abstract idea of providing effective student guidance and the solution of providing easy to understand information on students estimated feelings (i.e. color coded objects) is not a technical solution as this is merely presenting information to a person in way which allows the human to understand the information. There are no technical details as to improvements as to how technology is used or implement to estimate the feelings or user interface technology.
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 Devin C. Hein whose telephone number is (303)297-4305. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM M-F MDT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights