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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 7, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes acquiring provision biological information held by a provider and necessary information indicating biological information required by a provision destination candidate of the provision biological information; acquiring a value of the provision biological information based on the acquired provision biological information, the necessary information, and a coincidence ratio between the provision biological information and the necessary information; presenting the acquired value of the provision biological information to the provider by transmitting the acquired value of the provision biological information; and, presenting, to the provider based on the acquired value of the provision biological information, possibility of provision of the provision biological information to the provision destination candidate and priority of provision of the provision biological information to each of a plurality of provision destination candidates. This is a method of managing interactions between people (e.g., the provider and the provision destination candidate). The mere nominal recitation of processing circuitry an information processing apparatus of the provider, and a communication interface does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of acquiring, acquiring, presenting, and presenting in a computer environment. The claimed processing circuitry, information processing apparatus, and communication interface are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of acquiring, acquiring, presenting, and presenting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 14-17, and 21-22 directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining acquiring the necessary information from the determined provision destination candidate. Claims 3-4 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining determining the provision destination candidate. Claims 6-8 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining acquiring the value of the provision biological information. Claim 10 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining converting the acquired value of the provision biological information into an amount of money. Claims 14-16 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining the provision biological information. Claim 17 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining supporting an application for medical cost deduction by the provider based on the acquired value of the provision biological information. Claim 21 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining displaying a selection screen for a user to select the provision destination candidate. Claim 22 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining excluding the provision destination candidate from the set of provision destination candidates. These limitations are all directed to a method of managing interactions between people (e.g., the provider and the provision destination candidate). Thus, claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 14-17, and 21-22 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 14-17, and 21-22 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 18 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes holding provision biological information; holding necessary information indicating biological information required by the provision destination candidate; acquiring the provision biological information and the necessary information; acquiring a value of the provision biological information based on the acquired provision biological information, the necessary information and a coincidence ratio between the provision biological information and the necessary information; presenting the acquired value of the provision biological information to the provider by transmitting the acquired value of the provision biological information; and, presenting, to the provider based on the acquired value of the provision biological information, possibility of provision of the provision biological information to the provision destination candidate and priority of provision of the provision biological information to each of a plurality of provision destination candidates. This is a method of managing interactions between people (e.g., the provider and the provision destination candidate). The mere nominal recitation of a first information processing apparatus of a provider of a provision biological information, a second information processing apparatus of a provision destination candidate of the provision biological information, a biological information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry, an information processing apparatus, and a communication interface does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of holding; holding; acquiring; acquiring; presenting; and presenting in a computer environment. The claimed first information processing apparatus of a provider of a provision biological information, second information processing apparatus of a provision destination candidate of the provision biological information, biological information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry, information processing apparatus, and communication interface are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of holding; holding; acquiring; acquiring; presenting; and presenting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Independent claim 19 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes acquiring provision biological information held by a provider and necessary information indicating biological information required by a provision destination candidate of the provision biological information; acquiring a value of the provision biological information based on the acquired provision biological information, the necessary information and a coincidence ratio between the provision biological information and the necessary information; presenting the acquired value of the provision biological information to the provider by transmitting the acquired value of the provision biological information; and, presenting, to the provider based on the acquired value of the provision biological information, possibility of provision of the provision biological information to the provision destination candidate and priority of provision of the provision biological information to each of a plurality of provision destination candidates. This is a method of managing interactions between people (e.g., the provider and the provision destination candidate). The mere nominal recitation of an information processing apparatus of the provider and a communication interface does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of acquiring, acquiring, presenting, and presenting in a computer environment. The claimed processing circuitry information processing apparatus and communication interface are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of acquiring, acquiring, presenting, and presenting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Independent claim 20 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes acquiring provision biological information held by a provider and necessary information indicating biological information required by a provision destination candidate of the provision biological information; acquiring a value of the provision biological information based on the acquired provision biological information, the necessary information, and a coincidence ratio between the provision biological information and the necessary information; presenting the acquired value of the provision biological information to the provider by transmitting the acquired value of the provision biological information; and, presenting, to the provider based on the acquired value of the provision biological information, possibility of provision of the provision biological information to the provision destination candidate and priority of provision of the provision biological information to each of a plurality of provision destination candidates. This is a method of managing interactions between people (e.g., the provider and the provision destination candidate). The mere nominal recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a computer, an information processing apparatus of the provider, and a communication interface does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of acquiring; acquiring; presenting; and presenting in a computer environment. The claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, computer, information processing apparatus, and communication interface are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of acquiring; acquiring; presenting; and presenting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Novel & Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 14-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1 and 18-20 (and their respective dependent claims) would be allowable for disclosing a process of acquiring the value of the provision biological information based on provision biological information, the necessary information, and a coincidence ratio between the provision biological information and the necessary information.
Gal US 20220148023 teaches acquiring the value of the provision biological information based on the acquired provision biological information and the necessary information (e.g., Gal [0003]). Nevertheless, nothing within the prior art teaches that value of the provision biological information is acquired based on a coincidence ratio between the provision biological information and the necessary information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the disclosed improvement is not a business or commercial benefit, but a system-level operational improvement” (p. 10). Such an alleged improvement is at best an improvement to the operational process of managing interactions between people. For example, claim 1 includes four steps: the first two steps “acquire … information;” and, the last two steps “present … [the information] to the provider.”
Applicant argues that “Amended claims 1 and 18-20 expressly require that the computed value be used to determine possibility of provision and priority of provision among a plurality of provision destination candidates” (p. 11). The Examiner notes that Applicant argues features that are not currently recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that:
The Office Action expressly acknowledges that the prior art does not teach acquiring
the value of provision biological information based on a coincidence ratio between provision biological information and necessary information, and further indicates that the claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the § 101 rejection. This concession underscores that the claimed invention is directed to a specific technical solution, not a fundamental or conventional practice.
(p. 11). The Examiner disagrees. Not all solutions are “technical” solutions. The claims do not include any limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application by way of improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628