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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an estimation part” and “a control unit” in claim 1; “a model generation part” in claim 3; “a tactile information generation part” and “a first output control part” in claim 12; “a second output control part” in claim 17; “a provision part” in claim 19; “an estimation part”, “a control unit”, “a reception part” and “a display control part” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “an estimation part” and “model generation part" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “highest-order biological information” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highest-order” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
As to claim 21, the claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category. They are, at best, functional descriptive material per se.
Descriptive material can be characterized as either “functional descriptive material” or “nonfunctional descriptive material.” Both types of “descriptive material” are nonstatutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lawry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Merely claiming nonfunctional descriptive material, i.e., abstract ideas, stored on a computer-readable medium, in a computer, or on an electromagnetic carrier signal, does not make is statutory. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185-186, 209 USPQ at 8 (noting that the claims for an algorithm in Benson were unpatentable as abstract ideas because “[t]he sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a general purpose computer.”).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information processing device comprising: an estimation part that estimates, on the basis of context information of a first user, a fan type to which a second user belongs among fan types that are types defined for each of predetermined targets, and are types defined in stages according to degrees of supporting the predetermined target; and a control unit that executes, for the second user, control according to a fan type estimated by the estimation part”.
The limitations of “
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “an information processing device” and “a control unit” to perform the claimed steps. The “information processing device” and “control unit” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “an information processing device” and “a control unit” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does 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 using “an information processing device” and “a control unit” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “second fan type, and the third fan type defined for each of the predetermined targets”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “estimation part estimates a fan type to which the second user belongs among the first fan type, the second fan type, and the third fan type defined for each of the predetermined targets on the basis of the model and biological information of the second user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “corresponding to each of the predetermined targets, with the biological information of the second user as an input, and the estimation part estimates, on the basis of the probability, to which of the first fan type, the second fan type, and the third fan type the second user belongs, the first fan type, the second fan type, and the third fan type being defined for each of the predetermined targets”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “who is a user, among the second users, estimated to have the first fan type that is an official fan of the predetermined target indicated by the fan type of the promotion target person, with the promotion target person”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “belonging to the first fan type among the fan users with the promotion target person”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “high-order targets including the predetermined target indicated by the fan type of the promotion target person”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “change from the third fan type to the first fan type”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “the tactile information is output from an output device worn by the promotion target person as the fanization promotion information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “the tactile information is output from an output device worn by the promotion target person as the fanization promotion information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information processing method executed by an information processing device, the method comprising: an estimation step of estimating, on the basis of context information of a first user, a fan type to which a second user belongs among fan types that are types defined for each of predetermined targets, and are types defined in stages according to degrees of supporting the predetermined target; and a control step of executing, for the second user, control according to a fan type estimated by the estimation step”.
The limitations of “An information processing method executed by
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “an information processing device” to perform the claimed steps. The “information processing device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “an information processing device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does 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 using “an information processing device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information processing program for causing an information processing device to execute: an estimation procedure of estimating, on the basis of context information of a first user, a fan type to which a second user belongs among fan types that are types defined for each of predetermined targets, and are types defined in stages according to degrees of supporting the predetermined target; and a control procedure of executing, for the second user, control according to a fan type estimated by the estimation procedure”.
The limitations of “An information processing program for causing
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “an information processing device” to perform the claimed steps. The “information processing device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “an information processing device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does 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 using “an information processing device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A terminal device that communicates with an information processing device including: an estimation part that estimates, on the basis of context information of a first user, a fan type to which a second user belongs among fan types that are types defined for each of predetermined targets, and are types defined in stages according to degrees of supporting the predetermined targets; and a control unit that executes, for the second user, control according to a fan type estimated by the estimation part, the terminal device being for use by the second user, and comprising: a reception part that receives information provided from the information processing device according to control by the control unit; and a display control part that causes the information received by the reception part to be display on a screen”.
The limitations of “
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a terminal device”, “an information processing device”, “a control unit”, “a reception part”, “a display control part” and “a screen“ to perform the claimed steps. The “terminal device”, “information processing device”, “control unit”, “reception part”, “display control part” and “screen“ in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a terminal device”, “an information processing device”, “a control unit”, “a reception part”, “a display control part” and “a screen“ performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “causes the information received by the reception part to be display on
The claim does 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 using “a terminal device”, “an information processing device”, “a control unit”, “a reception part”, “a display control part” and “a screen“ to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “causes the information received by the reception part to be display on
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Overman et al. (‘Overman’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200034878).
As per claim 1, Overman teaches
An information processing device comprising: (paragraph [0005]-[0006])
an estimation part that estimates, on the basis of context information of a first user, a fan type to which a second user belongs among fan types that are types defined for each of predetermined targets, and are types defined in stages according to degrees of supporting the predetermined target; (analyze user/fan information and attributes where similar fans or fans in a same or similar category as the fan, paragraph [0021]; fan may be low-level loyalty member and upgrading loyalty status, paragraphs [0023]&[0036]; note that similar fans and fan loyalty member of low-level, status upgrades of loyalty, and similar/category of fans indicate different types of fans and degrees of support related to multiple – i.e. first and second - users)
and a control unit that executes, for the second user, control according to a fan type estimated by the estimation part. (fan recognized based on loyalty and given offers, paragraph [0028], where loyalty reads on fan type estimated)
As per claim 2, Overman teaches
the fan types include a first fan type indicating being an official fan of any of the predetermined targets, a second fan type indicating being a potential fan of any of the predetermined targets, and a third fan type indicating not being any fan of any of the predetermined targets, and the estimation part estimates a fan type to which the second user belongs among the first fan type, the second fan type, and the third fan type defined for each of the predetermined targets. (analyze user/fan information and attributes where similar fans or fans in a same or similar category as the fan, paragraph [0021]; loyalty status and upgrades to status, paragraph [0036]; low-level loyalty member, paragraph [0023]; loyalty member card, paragraph [0028]; note that “potential”, “official”, and “not being any fan” are non-functional descriptions of types of fans, and this this non-functional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As per claim 3, Overman teaches
a model generation part that generates a model for estimating a fan type to which the second user belongs by using a combination of a correct answer label indicating a fan type to which the first user belongs and biological information of the first user as learning data, wherein the estimation part estimates a fan type to which the second user belongs among the first fan type, the second fan type, and the third fan type defined for each of the predetermined targets on the basis of the model and biological information of the second user. (provide user with benefits based on user information associating a list of attributes with the fan along with a hierarchy of the attributes including age of fan, paragraph [0021], where age reads on biological information; see also paragraphs [0023],[0028],[0036] where fan attributes can be associated with loyalty member or status).
As per claim 4, Overman teaches
the model generation part generates the model that outputs a probability that the second user belongs to each fan type corresponding to each of the predetermined targets, with the biological information of the second user as an input, and the estimation part estimates, on the basis of the probability, to which of the first fan type, the second fan type, and the third fan type the second user belongs, the first fan type, the second fan type, and the third fan type being defined for each of the predetermined targets. (see paragraphs [0023],[0028],[0032]-[0033],[0036] where prioritized list of fan attributes can be associated with loyalty status and upgrades; analyze user/fan information and attributes where similar fans or fans in a same or similar category as the fan, paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 5, Overman teaches
in a case where there is a user estimated to have the second fan type among the second users, the control unit defines the user as a promotion target person who is to be encouraged to make an attribute change from the second fan type to the first fan type. (send a notification to the fan that tailgate equipment such as charcoal, grates, grills, and the like are on sale when the fan upgrades their loyalty status, paragraph [0036])
As per claim 6, Overman teaches
the control unit associates a fan user who is a user, among the second users, estimated to have the first fan type that is an official fan of the predetermined target indicated by the fan type of the promotion target person, with the promotion target person. (send a notification to the fan that tailgate equipment such as charcoal, grates, grills, and the like are on sale when the fan upgrades their loyalty status, paragraph [0036])
As per claim 7, Overman teaches
in a case where there are a plurality of the fan users, the control unit associates a user having a highest probability of belonging to the first fan type among the fan users with the promotion target person. (see paragraphs [0023],[0028],[0032]-[0033],[0036] where prioritized list of fan attributes can be associated with loyalty status and upgrades; analyze user/fan information and attributes where similar fans or fans in a same or similar category as the fan, paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 8, Overman teaches
in a case where the fan user is not present and the association of the fan user with the promotion target person is impossible, the control unit redefines, as the promotion target person, the second user who has been estimated to have the second fan type as a fan type corresponding to high-order targets including the predetermined target indicated by the fan type of the promotion target person. (analyze user/fan information and attributes where similar fans or fans in a same or similar category as the fan, paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 9, Overman teaches
in a case where there is a user estimated to have the third fan type among the second users, the control unit defines the user as a promotion target person who is to be encouraged to make an attribute change from the third fan type to the first fan type. (send a notification to the fan that tailgate equipment such as charcoal, grates, grills, and the like are on sale when the fan upgrades their loyalty status, paragraph [0036])
As per claim 10, Overman teaches
the control unit associates a fan user, among the second users, who is a user estimated to have the first fan type and having highest-order biological information detected, with the promotion target person. (send the fan a notification offering a free beer for inputting the fan's birth date, paragraph [0028]; analyze user/fan information and attributes where similar fans or fans in a same or similar category as the fan, paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 11, Overman teaches
the control unit performs control to present fanization promotion information to the promotion target person, the fanization promotion information being information for the purpose of encouraging a change of an attribute of the promotion target person to the first fan type. (send a notification to the fan that tailgate equipment such as charcoal, grates, grills, and the like are on sale when the fan upgrades their loyalty status, paragraph [0036])
As per claim 16, Overman teaches
in a case where an attribute change has been detected from a current fan type to other fan type by continuous estimation of a fan type, the control unit performs control so that additional information for the purpose of adding a value to an experience of a user whose attribute change has been detected is presented. (sense from GPS location that the fan and send a notification to the fan that tailgate equipment such as charcoal, grates, grills, and the like are on sale when the fan upgrades their loyalty status, paragraph [0036])
As per claim 17, Overman teaches
a second output control part that controls, as presentation control of the additional information, an output mode in a predetermined device corresponding to the user whose attribute change has been detected according to the attribute change. (send a notification to the fan that tailgate equipment such as charcoal, grates, grills, and the like are on sale when the fan upgrades their loyalty status, paragraph [0036])
As per claim 18, Overman teaches
the second output control part estimates a device owned by the user among the predetermined devices, and controls an output mode of the estimated device according to the attribute change. (mobile device having GPS, paragraph [0035]; send a notification to the fan that tailgate equipment such as charcoal, grates, grills, and the like are on sale when the fan upgrades their loyalty status, paragraph [0036])
As per claim 19, Overman teaches
a provision part that provides, on the basis of an analysis result obtained by analyzing the context information, a content according to the analysis result to a user from which the context information has been acquired. (mobile device having GPS, paragraph [0035]; send a notification to the fan that tailgate equipment such as charcoal, grates, grills, and the like are on sale when the fan upgrades their loyalty status, paragraph [0036])
As per claim 20,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 21,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 22, Overman teaches
A terminal device that communicates with an information processing device including: (paragraph [0005]-[0006])
an estimation part that estimates, on the basis of context information of a first user, a fan type to which a second user belongs among fan types that are types defined for each of predetermined targets, and are types defined in stages according to degrees of supporting the predetermined targets; (analyze user/fan information and attributes where similar fans or fans in a same or similar category as the fan, paragraph [0021]-[0023]; fan may be low-level loyalty member and upgrading loyalty status, paragraphs [0023]&[0036]; note that similar fans and fan loyalty member of low-level, status upgrades of loyalty, and similar/category of fans indicate different types of fans and degrees of support related to multiple – i.e. first and second - users)
and a control unit that executes, for the second user, control according to a fan type estimated by the estimation part, the terminal device being for use by the second user, and comprising: (fan recognized based on loyalty and given offers, paragraph [0028], where loyalty reads on fan type estimated)
a reception part that receives information provided from the information processing device according to control by the control unit; and a display control part that causes the information received by the reception part to be display on a