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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 05/26/2026. Claims 1-7, 9-10 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claim 11 has been added. Claims 1-7, 9-11 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 9-10, line(s) 12 (claim 1), “in a case where the body temperature is used” seems to be a grammatical error. Examiner recommends amending it to read -- in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated based on the body temperature --.
In claims 1, 9-10, line(s) 14 (claim 1), “or in a case where the information regarding the prescription is used” seems to be a grammatical error. Examiner recommends amending it to read – [[or]] and in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated based on the information regarding the prescription --.
In claims 1, 9-10, line(s) 23 (claim 1), “allow, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated to be bad, not to output” seems to be a grammatical error. Examiner recommends amending it to read – prevent, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated to be bad, an output of --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “output, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is not estimated to be bad, information to be provided to the customer when the predicted time for the customer to wait exceeds a threshold value, wherein the information to be provided to the customer includes sales promotion information and information indicating a time to wait; and allow, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated to be bad, not to output the sales promotion information from the information to be provided to the customer when the predicted time for the customer to wait exceeds the threshold value.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 9-10, claims 1, 9-10are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-7, 11 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 9-10 through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
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 1-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 9 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 10 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture).
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9-10) recites… identify a customer; acquire information regarding a prescription issued to the identified customer and information indicating a work status of medicine dispensing based on the prescription; predict a time for the customer to wait based on at least one of the information regarding the prescription and the information indicating the work status of medicine dispensing based on the prescription; estimate a physical condition of the customer based on at least one of a body temperature of the customer detected…and information regarding the prescription, wherein in a case where the body temperature is used, the physical condition is estimated to be bad when the body temperature is equal to or greater than a predetermined temperature threshold, or in a case where the information regarding the prescription is used, the physical condition is estimated to be bad when a type of medicine indicated in the prescription matches a predetermined rule for determining the customer's physical condition; output, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is not estimated to be bad, information to be provided to the customer when the predicted time for the customer to wait exceeds a threshold value, wherein the information to be provided to the customer includes sales promotion information and information indicating a time to wait; and allow, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated to be bad, not to output the sales promotion information from the information to be provided to the customer when the predicted time for the customer to wait exceeds the threshold value.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” (claim 1), “computer” (claims 9-10), the claim encompasses rules or instructions to collect data, analyze the collected data, and output data based on the analysis (i.e., predicted wait time). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., An information providing apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors; an infrared sensor). Claim 9 recites additional elements (i.e., a computer; an infrared sensor). Claim 10 recites additional elements (i.e., A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program; a computer; an infrared sensor). Looking to the specifications, a computer having a memory storing instructions, one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program is described at a high level of generality (page 21, line 20 – page 22, line 25), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “an infrared sensor” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., sensing, providing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computer having a memory storing instructions, one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “an infrared sensor” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., sensing, providing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8, 11 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-8, 11 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 05/26/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections.
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“"estimating a physical condition of the customer," "outputting, only in a case where the customer's physical condition is not estimated to be bad, information to be provided to the customer," and "allowing, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated to be bad, not to output the sales promotion information from the information to be provided to the customer. " This enables the claimed apparatus to reduce unnecessary information processing and communication load by identifying unnecessary information and preventing its transmission, thereby improving user experience”; and
“The claimed invention provides a non-conventional and inventive combination of known elements of the information processing, which constitutes "inventive concept" under Step 2B… The present claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as they set forth a specific and complex approach for identifying unnecessary information and preventing its processing by estimating a customer's physical condition and predicting a customer's wait time which is not taught by the recited references as discussed below.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations.
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and does not find them persuasive. Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 112(b) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections:
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner withdraws the aforementioned 112(b) rejections of Office Action dated 02/25/2026 because the amendments have rendered the rejections moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 101 rejections,
“”estimating a physical condition of the customer," "outputting, only in a case where the customer's physical condition is not estimated to be bad, information to be provided to the customer," and "allowing, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated to be bad, not to output the sales promotion information from the information to be provided to the customer. " This enables the claimed apparatus to reduce unnecessary information processing and communication load by identifying unnecessary information and preventing its transmission, thereby improving user experience”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “estimating a physical condition of the customer," "outputting, only in a case where the customer's physical condition is not estimated to be bad, information to be provided to the customer," and "allowing, in a case where the physical condition of the customer is estimated to be bad, not to output the sales promotion information from the information to be provided to the customer. " This enables the claimed apparatus to reduce unnecessary information processing and communication load by identifying unnecessary information and preventing its transmission, thereby improving user experience.” However, the claim limitations to which Applicant refer are rules or instructions to collect data, analyze the collected data, and output data based on the analysis (i.e., predicted wait time), which is the abstract idea, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. Even if the claims provide the alleged improvements, any alleged benefits of the invention are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
“The claimed invention provides a non-conventional and inventive combination of known elements of the information processing, which constitutes "inventive concept" under Step 2B… The present claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as they set forth a specific and complex approach for identifying unnecessary information and preventing its processing by estimating a customer's physical condition and predicting a customer's wait time which is not taught by the recited references as discussed below”:
Applicant argues “The claimed invention provides a non-conventional and inventive combination of known elements of the information processing, which constitutes "inventive concept" under Step 2B.” However, Applicant fails to specify the “elements of the information processing” to which Applicant refers. Regardless, whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity is not a standalone test for determining eligibility, but an exemplary consideration in a non-limiting list of considerations.
Applicant argues “a specific and complex approach for identifying unnecessary information and preventing its processing by estimating a customer's physical condition and predicting a customer's wait time.” However, Applicant fails to specify the claim limitations to which Applicant refers. Regardless, the claims of the present invention do not improve any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution; “identifying unnecessary information and preventing its processing by estimating a customer's physical condition and predicting a customer's wait time” addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution.
Examiner cannot find any problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined, which per broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, is a well-known, general purpose computer. The computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. While the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any technical improvement or any physical improvement to the computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues “a specific and complex approach for identifying unnecessary information and preventing its processing by estimating a customer's physical condition and predicting a customer's wait time…is not taught by the recited references as discussed below.” However, per MPEP § 2106.05(I): “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination…As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter…a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty…Because [novelty and obviousness] 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.”
Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 1-7, 9-11, which have been updated to address Applicant’s amendments and remarks and to comply with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in the above Office Action and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence in the above Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (c) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations:
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner withdraws the aforementioned 103 rejections of Office Action dated 02/25/2026 because the amendments have rendered the rejections moot.
Conclusion
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 Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773.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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights