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
The amendment filed 06/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 14-22 remain pending in the application.
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 by inputting the provision biological information and the necessary information into a machine learning model; 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; determining, based on the acquired value, whether provision of the provision biological information to each provision destination candidate is permitted; generating a set of provision destination candidates for which the provision of the provision biological information is permitted; receiving an instruction selecting a provision destination candidate included in the set; and transmitting the provision biological information to the selected provision destination candidate. 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, a communication interface, and a machine learning model 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, presenting,
determining, generating, receiving, and transmitting in a computer environment. The claimed processing circuitry, information processing apparatus, communication interface, and machine learning model 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, presenting,
determining, generating, receiving, and transmitting 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 by inputting the provision biological information and the necessary information into a machine learning model; presenting the acquired value of the provision biological information to the provider by transmitting the acquired value of the provision biological information; 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; determining, based on the acquired value, whether provision of the provision biological information to each provision destination candidate is permitted; generating a set of provision destination candidates for which the provision of the provision biological information is permitted; receiving an instruction selecting a provision destination candidate included in the set; and transmitting the provision biological information to the selected provision destination candidate. 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, a communication interface, and a machine learning model 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; presenting; determining; generating; receiving; and transmitting 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, communication interface, and machine learning model 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; presenting; determining; generating; receiving; and transmitting 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 by inputting the provision biological information and the necessary information into a machine learning model; 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; determining, based on the acquired value, whether provision of the provision biological information to each provision destination candidate is permitted; generating a set of provision destination candidates for which the provision of the provision biological information is permitted; receiving an instruction; selecting a provision destination candidate included in the set; and transmitting the provision biological information to the selected provision destination candidate. 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, a communication interface, and a machine learning model 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, presenting; determining; generating; receiving; and transmitting in a computer environment. The claimed processing circuitry information processing apparatus, communication interface, and machine learning model 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, presenting; determining; generating; receiving; and transmitting 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 by inputting the provision biological information and the necessary information into a machine learning model; presenting the acquired value of the provision biological information to the provider by transmitting the acquired value of the provision biological information; 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; determining, based on the acquired value, whether provision of the provision biological information to each provision destination candidate is permitted; generating a set of provision destination candidates for which the provision of the provision biological information is permitted; receiving an instruction selecting a provision destination candidate included in the set; and transmitting the provision biological information to the selected provision destination candidate. 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, a communication interface, and a machine learning model 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; presenting; determining; generating; receiving; and transmitting in a computer environment. The claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, computer, information processing apparatus, communication interface, and machine learning model 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; presenting; determining; generating; receiving; and transmitting 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 independent claims recite a specific machine-learning-based processing technique integrated into a concrete communication control workflow for controlling transmission of biological information between network connected apparatuses.
The independent claims therefore integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical
application. The claimed processing circuitry does not merely calculate or display a value for human consideration. Rather, the claimed processing circuitry uses a machine-learning derived value to automatically control downstream transmission operations of the biological information processing apparatus itself, including determining whether provision is permitted, generating a restricted set of permitted provision destination candidates, and controlling transmission of the provision biological information via the communication interface
(p. 11).
As discussed above, the claimed machine learning model is merely invoked as a tool 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, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that “the claims are directed to a specific technological implementation that improves operation of a biological-information distribution system and associated network communication” (p. 11). The Examiner notes that improving a distribution system and network communication does not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technical field.
Applicant argues that:
the claims include significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The independent
claims recite a particular combination of elements including: (i) machine-learning-based
acquisition of a value of provision biological information, (ii) automated determination of whether provision is permitted, (iii) generation of a restricted set of permitted provision destination candidates, (iv) receipt of a selection instruction corresponding to the generated set, and (v) transmission of the provision biological information to a selected provision destination candidate via the communication interface
(p. 12).
A claim that recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea) is eligible. Therefore, any purported inventive concept has to be an additional element that is not part of the abstract idea. In the present claims, there is no inventive concept that is in addition to (i.e., not a part of) the abstract idea. For instance, the elements (i)-(v) cited by Applicant on page 12, are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the cited elements are part of a method of managing interactions between people (e.g., the provider and the provision destination candidate)). If the purported inventive concept is part of the abstract idea, it is not an “additional element” under Step 2B. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the abstract limitations were novel/non-obvious, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights