DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 31 March 2026. Claim 5 has been cancelled, claims 1-4 and 6 have been amended, and no new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objection(s); therefore, the Examiner withdraws the objection(s).
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejection(s).
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103; therefore, the Examiner indicates allowability over the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 May 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 11 November 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that “social network service” is now claimed as what is meant by “SNS” (at claim 2). Although the terms “social” is not indicated in the specification, it appears that Figs. 44-45 are illustrating a form or type of social networking post. Therefore, the amending indicating “social network service” is entered and not objected to or rejected.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system (claims 1-5) and a method (claim 6), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a system for supporting health care service, the system comprising: at least one mobile terminal receiving an online health questionnaire including basic information, lifestyle, physical symptoms and interests using a web page, app page, program or application related to a health care service, providing questionnaire answers to the online health questionnaire, and receiving search and recommendation for health status results analyzed based on the questionnaire answers and types of health functional foods and nutritional ingredients suitable for or helpful thereto; and a health care service management server providing the online health questionnaire with question types consisting of basic information, lifestyle, symptoms and interests to the mobile terminal, collecting the questionnaire answers to the health questionnaire entered on the mobile terminal, analyzing disease information and diseases according to lifestyle and symptoms included in the collected questionnaire answers, and recommending nutritional ingredients suitable for the analysis results and providing recommendation information and sales information on health functional foods containing the recommended nutritional ingredients wherein the health care service management server receives the user's health record information from the National Health Insurance Service under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, classifies the medication information, medical history, and vaccination in the user's health record information, and analyzes and provides, based on the medication information, medical history, and vaccination, at least one disease of interest information related thereto.
Independent claim 6 is analyzed similarly to claim 1 since directed to a method for supporting a health care service, the method comprising: checking and providing, by a mobile terminal, health questionnaire answers to questions including basic information, lifestyle, physical symptoms provided by a health questionnaire platform; analyzing and providing, by a health care service management server, disease types and categories according to the user's health status based on the health questionnaire answers; recommending sales information and/or affiliated online shop sales information of preventive compositions effective for the disease types and categories analyzed by the health care service management server and health functional foods containing the preventive compositions; and requesting, by the user, purchase, payment, and delivery processing of health functional foods that the user searched for on the mobile terminal or received the recommendation from the health care service management server, requesting, by the health care service management server, when the product is delivered, a purchase review to be written to the mobile terminal, collecting the written purchase reviews and organizing the collected written purchase reviews into a database by member and product, and sharing the DB information with members
The dependent claims (claims 2-5) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate an interface (apparently a social media platform interface) for accessing posts by general and expert members and that can be shared, searched, or written (claim 2), with search capability for diseases (e.g., definitions, causes, etc.), departments (e.g., age, symptom keywords), and/or health function (e.g., disease factors, names, nutrition, etc.) (claims 3-4), and/or receiving medical records from the National Health Insurance Service under the Ministry of Health and Welfare (apparently a South Korean Agency), classifying the information, medical history, and vaccination in the user's health record information, and analyzing the information to provide at least one disease of interest information related thereto (claim 5).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of recommending nutritional ingredients based on questionnaire responses with sale/purchase capabilities and a review request; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. commercial or legal interactions such as … advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) especially as based on providing recommended nutritional ingredients and sales and/or purchase information ; and
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) as based on the observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion in recommending and reviewing food and/or nutrition products or services.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are the system comprising: at least one mobile terminal and a management server (at claim 1) and the method using the mobile terminal and management server (at claim 6). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. At least Applicant ¶¶ 0039-0040 (as published, p. 10 as submitted) indicate the computers or terminals used as merely generic devices such as a laptop, desktop (at 0039), or “server” (at 0040).
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6 are indicated as allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1 and 6 each recite “wherein the health care service management server receives the user’s health record information from the National Health Insurance Service under the Ministry of Health and Welfare”. As far as the Examiner can find, “the National Health Insurance Service” (NHIS) as being “under the Ministry of Health and Welfare” is strictly and solely a South Korean healthcare service. Since the application is for a United States (U.S.) patent, and although it may be possible in theory to receive such information from that source, it also appears to conflict with United States’ HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) requirements for privacy. Therefore, since there is no prior art apparently available citing records from that particular agency or service, and it would NOT appear reasonable to combine references should a reference recite that information being received from that source, it is understood that it is allowable over the prior art to receive the user’s health record information from the National Health Insurance Service under the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Applicant did not number the response pages; therefore, the Examiner refers to the pages below as though the first page of Remarks is page 1, proceeding sequentially to page 10.
Applicant first argues the claim objections and the rejections under § 112 (Remarks at 1-4); however, both the objections and 112 rejections appear overcome by the amendment. Therefore, these objections and rejections are withdrawn and the argument is considered moot and not persuasive.
Applicant then argues the 101 rejection(s) (Remarks at 4-7), first alleging (at Point “A”, beginning on p. 4) that “The Claims Are Not Directed Solely to an Abstract Idea” (Remarks at 4, emphasis added), and “This is not a concept that can be performed in the human mind or through purely mental steps” (Id. at 5, emphasis added). However, this argument is that ANY elements additional to the abstract would, by definition, apparently make the claims eligible – i.e., that any recitation of anything being done by a computer makes the claims pass eligibility analysis. However, this is not what Alice or the examination analysis guidelines indicate. The Examiner has pointed to those elements that are additional, and provided an indication of how those elements are being analyzed.
Applicant then argues Step 2A, Prong 2 (Remarks at 5, beginning at point “C” – line 7), alleging that by designating a particular database (i.e., “the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) under the Ministry of Health and Welfare … namely, the NHIS, a government-operated national health insurance database”) makes the claims “a particular technological implementation” (Remarks at 5). However, this is still just a database lookup, regardless of naming the specific database. A database may be a written document or record (e.g., like a library card catalog or a telephone directory such as the White Pages or Yellow Pages), and other than indicating a server as apparently performing the analyzing, there is no indication of any involvement or improvement to any technology – a person can analyze information from a data.
Applicant then attempts to apply prior art analysis within eligibility analysis (Remarks at 5-6), indicating that since it was indicated that it would not be reasonable to combine references given the prior art at the time of the Non-Final Office Action, it must therefore be considered “a meaningful, non-conventional limitation” (Id. at 6). However, there are vast number of issued patents – that have therefore overcome the prior art – that have been, and continue to be, found to be an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) says “Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”. And MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(1) indicates “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 190, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981). For example, claims may exhibit an improvement over conventional computer functionality even if the improvement lacks novelty over the prior art.” Although these MPEP sections indicate Step 2B analysis, they are equally applicable to Step 2A, Prong 2 – eligibility analysis does not consider prior art analysis.
Applicant then makes the same argument in relation to Step 2B (Remarks at 6, beginning at Point “C”, line 16); however, the same reasoning as indicated above is applied with respect to Step 2B.
Applicant then argues the prior art (Remarks at 7-9); however, based on the indication of allowability over the prior art for claim 5, the Examiner indicates that the claims appear to overcome the prior art. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the prior art rejections and the argument(s) is/are considered moot and not persuasive.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kyoung et al., Understanding and Utilizing Claim Data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and Health Insurance Review & Assessment (HIRA) Database for Research. J Lipid Atheroscler. 2022 May;11(2):103-110. doi: 10.12997/jla.2022.11.2.103. Epub 2021 Nov 26. PMID: 35656154; PMCID: PMC9133780. Downloaded from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9133780/ on 18 December 2025, indicating “Almost every Korean (97%) is enrolled in the National Health Insurance program, and most receive medical treatment at least once a year. Data are collected by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), and the results of the review are sent to the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS)” (at 103, Abstract), but “NHIS and HIRA data are inherently limited because they are used for billing and not for clinical research.4,5 Clinical outcomes are not recorded in the data. This is because these outcomes do not lie within the scope of the claims. For example, if a patient is placed under antihypertensive or diabetes medication, the direct result regarding a drop in blood pressure or glucose levels is not recorded” (at 105).
Sang Cheol Seong, et al., Data Resource Profile: The National Health Information Database of the National Health Insurance Service in South Korea, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 46, Issue 3, June 2017, Pages 799–800, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw253, downloaded 18 December 2025 from https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/3/799/2418193, describing the database for the South Korean National Health Insurance Service.
Eun Kyoung Ahn, A brief introduction to research based on real-world evidence: Considering the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, Integrative Medicine Research, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2022, 100797, ISSN 2213-4220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2021.100797. Downloaded 7 June 2026 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213422021000846, indicating “RWD [(“Real World Data”)] studies also have limitations. Insurance claims data are collected for the purpose of payment/reimbursement, which limits the validity of definitions of terms such as disease, condition, and comorbidity. Additionally, data is shared between agencies, limited laboratory results are available, and details of adverse events and use of non-reimbursed medications cannot be detected. While RWD provide information on the radiology/laboratory tests ordered by physicians, the results may be confounded by factors that are not captured by insurance claims. Incomplete data are also an issue, and may be seen in the context of sensitive diagnoses, drug dosages and information on pharmaceutical companies. As a matter of principle, institutions cannot disclose all of their data. Even EMRs, which include test results, can be very difficult to obtain from certain agencies due to policy issues, among other reasons. Therefore, researchers are not always able to conduct sophisticated randomized controlled trials using RWD. Nevertheless, RWD are useful for retrospective cohort studies. For example, after being released to the market, RWD can be analyzed to identify side effects of drugs, and the medical expenses associated with treating certain diseases.” (at Introduction).
Chun et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0315518, hereinafter Chun) indicates “reliability may be further increased by using big data from an organization that collects and manages many individual health-related information, such as the Korea National Health Insurance Service (KNIS)” (Chun at 0015), and “In Korea, an institution that may receive the user's medical data for each year may be the Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS), in which the KNHIS operates a database 32 that manages big data by collecting all medical records in Korea under the national policy, and provides the information” (Chun at 0033).
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0147777, hereinafter Kim) indicates “The patients' diagnosis data is stored in domestic and foreign big hospitals. The medical data is received from national health insurance service or health insurance review & assessment service” (Kim at 0059).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights