CTFR 18/844,092 CTFR 86022 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on March 19, 2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. At step 1, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, claim 17 is directed to a method, and claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Thus, claims 1, 17, and 18 are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter. At step 2A, prong I, independent claim 1 (representative) recites, "An information processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to measure effectiveness of an advertisement on a basis of encounter timing at which a user has encountered the advertisement and consumption timing at which the user has taken consumption behavior for an advertisement target of the advertisement, the effectiveness of the advertisement being measured on a basis of an evaluation value calculated using a weight corresponding to required consumption time from the encounter timing to the consumption timing, determine a presenting condition including at least one of an updated timing and an updated location to provide the advertisement, based on the evaluation value, and provide an updated advertisement to the user with the presenting condition." These limitations of claim 1, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claimed invention of claim 1 measures effectiveness of an advertisement which are adverting activities and behaviors. Further, calculating an evaluation value based on a weight is considered Mathematical Concepts, and measuring, determining, and providing can all be considered a Mental Process as they are something that a human can do either in the mind or using pen and paper. Therefore, the limitations of claim 1 comprise at least one abstract idea. At step 2A, prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of "an information processing apparatus, "circuitry", "a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium". These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea. At step 2B, 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 of "an information processing apparatus, "circuitry", "a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium" are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-16 and 19-21, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claim 1 without significantly more. Claims 2-9, 11, 14-16, and 19-21 further limit the abstract idea and are part of the same abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 10 recites, "The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is configured to cause a terminal used by the user to display a list of advertisements encountered by the user." Claim 12 recites, "The information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry is configured to cause the terminal to display the list of the advertisements arranged in descending order of the gaze degree." Claim 13 recites, "The information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry is configured to cause the terminal to display the list of the advertisements that meet a condition specified by the user among the advertisements encountered by the user." The displaying steps of claims 10, 12, and 13 are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more because they are recited at the apply it level. The additional elements of a display control unit and a terminal are generic computing elements performing generic functions and they also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more because they are generically recited. Therefore, claims 1-21 are ineligible. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees . Applicant initially argues that the claims do not contain an abstract idea because they do not include features which could be performed in the human mind. However, the abstract idea identified in the previous office action was Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, which does not necessitate being done in the human mind. Above, the Mathematical Calculations and Mental Processes buckets are discussed as well, though CMOHA is still the primary identified abstract idea. As to whether the claims contain features which can be done in the human mind, measuring effectiveness, determining conditions, and providing an advertisement are all steps that can be done by a human using the mind or pen and paper, as a human can calculate effectiveness, make a determination, and then provide an advertisement to a location. While the instant claim uses circuitry to carry out these steps, the circuitry disclosed is at the ‘apply it’ level, amounting to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components. Further, the instant claims are not analogous to the claims of example 37, so this argument is not persuasive. Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application through some improvement to the computer. However, this is not demonstrated either in the claims or in the cited paragraphs of the specification. The improvement in the claims is to the delivery conditions of the advertisement, to make the ad more effective. This is an improvement to the abstract idea of delivering an advertisement, and there is no showing of improvement to a computer itself, or even to the process of delivering the advertisement. Instead, the timing is adjusted to improve effectiveness of the ad, which does not involve any improvements to the computer. Applicant further argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant presents no specific arguments to support this allegation, other than to say that the elements are unconventional and more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. However, this analysis applies to the additional elements in the claims. As the only additional element in the claim is a generic computer, there is nothing unconventional or more than WURC about the processing apparatus and circuitry. While the calculation and weighting as claimed may be unconventional, this is part of the improvement to the abstract idea, and does not involve any improvement to the computer. Therefore, an improvement in the abstract idea is still a part of the abstract idea and cannot demonstrate going beyond WURC. This argument is not persuasive, and the 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments and amendments are persuasive regarding the 112(f) interpretation of the claims, and they are no longer being interpreted under 112(f). Applicant’s incorporation of claim 2 into the independent claims has overcome the previous prior art rejection, and the claims would be in condition for allowance if the 101 were overcome. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F. 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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350 . 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. /ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622 Application/Control Number: 18/844,092 Page 2 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 18/844,092 Page 3 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 18/844,092 Page 4 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 18/844,092 Page 5 Art Unit: 3622
Prosecution Insights