DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on November 19, 2025.
Claims 3-8, 12, and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1, 2, and 9-11 are pending and rejected.
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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Remarks at 9. Applicant refers to Example 2 from 2015 in support of this argument. Id. However, Applicant should refer to MPEP 2106.04(a), which reflects the 2019 PEG and discusses the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Per the rejection, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity.
Regarding step 2A, prong two, Applicant argues that the claims are eligible for reasons similar to Core Wireless. Remarks at 10. However, unlike in Core Wireless, the instant claims do not provide an improved user interface. For example, specifying both the content and the manner of display does not provide an improved user interface. Instead, existing technology is being used to display data in a manner that may improve the recited abstract idea.
Regarding step 2B, Applicant argues that “the claimed features provide a specific improvement over conventional system/technology. Applicant submits that claim 1 provides an ‘inventive concept,’ and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities.” Remarks at 12. However, Applicant has not shown that the technology has been improved. Additionally, the rejection does not allege that the additional elements are well understood, routine, or conventional. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments that incorporated features from canceled claims and added that “a frequency of opening a bingo frame in the digital bingo card is decided…based on face authentication for a payment amount.” This feature as combined with the other limitations of the independent claims makes the claims novel and non-obvious.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are objected to for the following reason: Claim 1 recites “provide, to a user terminal of a user, of a sales promotion content used for sales promotion of the store.” Claims 9 and 10 recite a similar limitation. This limitation appears to include a typographical error. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as not including “of a.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1 and 2, which recite an information processing apparatus and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claim 9, which recites a method and, therefore, is directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 10 and 11, which recite a non-transitory computer readable medium and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1 and 2 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions, and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
store subscription registration information and biometric information of a user who receives provision of a service associated to the subscription registration information in association with each other;
acquire biometric information of a user from a terminal installed in a store;
execute authentication processing of the acquired biometric information;
output subscription registration information associated with biometric information of a user when the user is authenticated as a registrant by authentication processing; and
provide, to a user terminal of a user, of a sales promotion content used for sales promotion of the store, wherein
the sales promotion content is a bingo game using a digital bingo card in which a plurality of bingo frames, related to the store where the subscription has been registered, are arranged, and
a frequency of opening a bingo frame in the digital bingo card is decided based on the subscription registration information and based on face authentication for a payment amount.
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to notify a staff of a store of a result of authentication processing.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to authenticating a user and providing promotional content to the user. This type of method of organizing human activity is a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device (i.e., the claimed processor) is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Masuda, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0084342 A1. This reference teaches a gate control device that receives biometric information.
Im et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0364321 A1. This reference teaches user authentication using voice and facial data.
Small, U.S. Patent Number 5,791,991. This reference teaches an interactive consumer product promotion game such as bingo.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
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 extension fee 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 ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693