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
Claims 1-10 were previously pending. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 were amended, and claim 2 was canceled in the reply filed December 10, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-10 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection to the title and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application due to reciting "automatically determine to cancel a reservation based on an elapsed time during which the portable terminal has not been worn exceeding a predetermined time for determining an intention to cancel the reservation." Remarks, 10. Determining whether or not to cancel a reservation based on an elapsed time during which the portable terminal has not been worn exceeding a predetermined time for determining an intention to cancel the reservation is the abstract idea itself. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added). When viewed in combination, these limitations describe managing certain methods of organizing human activities via the use of data gathered from a generic portable device. Applicant also argues that the claims recite "significantly more" (Remarks, 11) but no reasons specific to the invention are provided. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections made under §§ 102 & 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1 and 3-10, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including acquiring, from a first user, holding state information indicating a holding state of the portable terminal; acquiring authentication result information indicating a result of biometric authentication performed; estimating an arrival time using position information of the first user; determining to cancel a reservation based on an elapsed time during which the portable terminal has not been worn exceeding a predetermined time for determining an intention to cancel the reservation; and outputting the holding state information, the authentication result information, the position information of the first user, and the estimated arrival time to a second user who is different from the first user.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for notifying one person whether or not an object is being held by another person in order to manage the other person's reservations (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Additionally, it recites processes that can be performed mentally (e.g., a person observing a holding state including authentication and position, evaluating them, and arriving at judgments on a notification of the holding state to another person and whether or not to cancel a reservation based on an estimated arrival time).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (system, computer, non-transitory recording medium, memory that is configured to store instructions, processor that is configured to execute the instructions, portable terminal, information processing terminal—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (system, computer, non-transitory recording medium, memory that is configured to store instructions, processor that is configured to execute the instructions, portable terminal, information processing terminal—see published Specification ¶¶ 0036-39, 46 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 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 improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims. Claims 5-6 further recite that the portable terminal is a wearable terminal or tag type terminal, however this merely further describes the general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment/field-of-use. Claim 7 recites that the system outputs audio, however this is merely an extra-solution data outputting activity that its tangential to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (wearable terminal, tag type terminal, outputting audio), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see published Specification ¶¶ 0094, 110-111, 139 describing these at a high level of generality and without appreciable technical specifics). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamaya, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0314434 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250408) in view of Frank, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0275034 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250408) and Jorasch, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0373676 (Reference G of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250408).
As per claim 1, Kamaya teaches an information processing system comprising:
at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (¶¶ 0050-52); and
at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions (¶¶ 0050-52) to:
acquire, from a portable terminal used by a first user, holding state information indicating a holding state of the portable terminal (¶¶ 0068, 71, 89; see also ¶¶ 0022, 26, 33—portable terminal); and
output the holding state information, the authentication result information, the position information of the first user to an information processing terminal used by a second user who is different from the first user (¶¶ 0044. 88-92).
Kamaya does not explicitly teach to acquire, from the portable terminal, authentication result information indicating a result of biometric authentication performed by the portable terminal; which is taught by Frank (¶¶ 0161, 214, 948). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Frank—namely, to securely ensure that the correct person is using the terminal. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of monitoring portable device usage. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Kamaya does not explicitly teach to automatically determine to cancel a reservation based on an elapsed time during which the portable terminal has not been worn exceeding a predetermined time for determining an intention to cancel the reservation; which is taught by Frank (¶¶ 0267-270, 274). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Frank—namely, to revoke access when a person is attempting to use the terminal for a reservation that has not adhered to a protocol for wearing the terminal. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of monitoring portable device usage. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Kamaya does not explicitly teach to estimate an arrival time using position information of the first user; and output and the estimated arrival time to a second user who is different from the first user; which is taught by Jorasch (¶¶ 0841, 1111). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Jorasch—namely, so that participants can be made aware of when other participants will likely arrive. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of monitoring portable device usage. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 3, Kamaya in view of Frank and Jorasch teaches claim 1 as above. Kamaya further teaches the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: generate reservation information about a reservation by the first user (¶¶ 0074, 85); and output the holding state information and the reservation information to the information processing terminal used by the second user (¶¶ 0044. 90-92).
As per claim 4, Kamaya in view of Frank and Jorasch teaches claim 3 as above. Frank further teaches the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to cancel the reservation by the first user indicated by the reservation information, when the holding state information indicates that the portable terminal is not held by the first user (¶¶ 0267-270, 274), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 5, Kamaya in view of Frank and Jorasch teaches claim 4 as above. Frank further teaches the portable terminal is a wearable terminal (¶ 0144), and the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire information indicating whether or not the first user is wearing the wearable terminal, as the holding state information (¶¶ 0267-270, 274); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 8, Kamaya in view of Frank and Jorasch teaches claim 1 as above. Kamaya further teaches the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire position information indicating a position of the first user (¶ 0068); and output the holding state information and the position information to the information processing terminal used by the second user (¶¶ 0044. 90-92).
As per claim 9, Kamaya in view of Frank and Jorasch teaches an information processing method that is executed by at least one computer, the information processing method comprising: steps implementing the functionality of analogous claim 1 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
As per claim 10, Kamaya in view of Frank and Jorasch teaches a non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program that allows at least one computer to execute an information processing method is recorded, the information processing method including: steps implementing the functionality of analogous claim 1 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamaya, et al. in view of Frank, et al. and Jorasch, et al. as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Schuster, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0060452 (Reference C of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250408).
As per claim 6, Kamaya in view of Frank and Jorasch teaches claim 4 as above. Kamaya further teaches that the allocation information is specifically a reservation of the terminal (¶¶ 0017, 74); and Frank further teaches that the reservation is canceled (¶¶ 0267-270, 274); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 4 above. The references do not explicitly teach the portable terminal is a tag type terminal installed in a tag terminal, and the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire information indicating whether or not the tag type terminal is pulled out from the tag terminal, as the holding state information; generate the allocation information when the tag type terminal is pulled out from the tag terminal; and cancel the allocation when the tag type terminal is returned to the tag terminal. However, these elements are taught by Schuster (¶¶ 0041, 64, 70, 105). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Schuster—namely, to track when paired tag terminals have been returned to a storage rack by employees and thus are no longer being carried by them. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of monitoring portable device usage. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamaya, et al. in view of Frank, et al. and Jorasch, et al. as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Lewis, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0333412 (Reference D of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250408).
As per claim 7, Kamaya in view of Frank and Jorasch teaches claim 3 as above. Kamaya further teaches the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to display the reservation information, for the second user (¶¶ 0017-18, 44, 90-92); wherein the first user is associated with the selected reservation information (¶ 0074). While Kamaya teaches that the user information is specifically a reservation (see above), it does not explicitly teach to output audio to the first user when the second user selects the user information displayed; which is taught by Lewis (¶¶ 0035, 40). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Lewis—namely, so that the second user can capture the attention of the first user with important messages. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of monitoring portable device usage. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628