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 .
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending for examination. Claim 3 is cancelled. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
The Claim Interpretation of claim 11 is withdrawn as the claim(s) have been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, the Examiner has indicated that claims 1-13 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
These rejections are respectfully traversed, especially as being inapplicable to the claims as amended in this paper.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth below.
Step 2A - Prong One
Applicant Argues: In this regard, the Examiner has not given appropriate consideration to the extensive "practical application" and real-world limitations associated with the recited information processing device and associated methodology which obtains future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained, and providing the future information, in order to reach a conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity without supporting this conclusion with a claim-focused rationale.
This method recited in independent claim 1 of the present application includes an advantageous combination of features in which future information is provided to a user so that the user can easily image the amount of possessions that the user would own in the future. With this, claim 1 of the present application produces the technical advantageous effect of contributing to the user's obtainment of an appropriate facility or to the improvement of the facility to secure an appropriate space for the user.
Similar to Appellant's further assertion in the above-discussed Decision on Appeal, the claimed invention of the instant application provides significant improvements in an information processing device and associated methodology, not a method of organizing human activity using a generic computing environment.
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(I) states that "[w]hen making the determination of whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, examiners should keep in mind that some inventions pertaining to improvements in computer functionality or to improvements in other technologies are not abstract when appropriately claimed, and thus may be eligible at Step 2A (emphasis added)."
Amended claim 1 of the instant application is clearly directed to improvements in an information processing device and associated methodology for providing future information about the amount of possessions that a user will own in the future so that the user can obtain an appropriate facility or the facility can improve on how it secures an appropriate space for the user based on the future information.
[...]
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity for the foregoing reasons and also it does not involve a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal interaction as set forth in the 2019 101 Guidelines. Instead, the recited information processing device and associated methodology involves a specific and novel combination of features in which the above-discussed advantages are obtained.
It is thus evident that such a novel combination of features could not be characterized as merely being a "fundamental" economic practice to any extent. This analysis is consistent with the directives of MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).II.A.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has given a read the claim in its entirety (limitation by limitation, in combination) and has concluded that claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13 recites an abstract idea which falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner respectfully notes “wherein the obtaining of the future information includes: obtaining, as the future information, an image obtained by combining a three- dimensional (3D) image showing the possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future with a 3D image showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living and presenting the future information to the one or more users resulting in the one or more users viewing the future information and thus viewing the space to be occupied by their possessions as placed in the facility in the future so that the one or more users are presented with information indicating the space required in the facility in the future” is a form of managing a personal behavior. The examiner respectfully notes the reliance of applicant’s argument towards a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal interaction is misplaced.
The examiner respectfully notes that the argued “advantageous features” “in which future information is provided to a user so that the user can easily image the amount of possessions that the user would own in the future” (from applicant’s argument) and how it relates “to showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living” (from claim) is noted to fall within the abstract idea itself. Of Note, the claim itself does not recite certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to secure an appropriate space for the user) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In addition, the only additional elements claimed are an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, p. 12 lines 30-34). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, Applicant’s Specification states in page 5 - “It may be however difficult for a person who views the real residence or information (e.g., the floor plan) indicating the residence to image the amount of possessions in the future.” The examiner respectfully notes that “may be” represents that it may be difficult or it may not be difficult for a person to view the real residence or information (e.g., the floor plan) indicating the residence to image the amount of possessions in the future.
Therefore, in summary claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13 recites an abstract idea which falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Examiner goes on to assert at page 7 of the Office Action that certain features of claim 1 fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. The Examiner thus concludes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
The combination of features of amended independent claim 1 do not cover any features that recite a mental process. More particularly, it is evident, from the following portions of the disclosure of the present application, that such features could not be performed in the human mind.
The USPTO's update to the 2019 101 Guidelines entitled "October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility" reiterated, at page 7, the directives that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (emphasis added)."
A USPTO Memorandum dated August 4, 2025 entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" reiterated the directives indicated in the previous paragraph of these remarks and went on to more particularly indicate, in the last paragraph of page 2, that "[t]he mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind (emphasis added)."
It is evident that the subject features recited in both the previous form of claim 1, and especially as amended in this paper, could not practically be performed in the human mind without the associated hardware and the assistance of a special purpose computer programmed to apply the specialized algorithms disclosed in the specification of the present application and recited in the claims.
[...]
For the Examiner to assert that the associated features of claim 1 of the present application could practically be performed in the human mind despite the above-quoted specific teachings in the specification of the present application, the Examiner appears to be disregarding such explanations that are clearly stated throughout the disclosure of the present application. If the Examiner intends to maintain such assertions, the Examiner is respectfully requested to clarify the record as to why he believes that such teachings in the specification of the present application are incorrect.
The fourth full paragraph of page 30 through to the first full paragraph of page 31 of the specification of the present application describe the processes and algorithms associated with an example of a processing flow, also referred to as an "information processing method," to be executed by server 10 according to an embodiment in connection with the flowchart of Fig. 16 of the present application.
It is evident from reviewing, for example, the processes and algorithms disclosed at this portion of the specification of the present application, including the detailed process flow and determinations shown therein, that such analyses would require the aid of a special purpose computer programmed to apply the specialized algorithms disclosed in the specification of the present application.
It is further evident that such features as discussed in the above-indicated paragraphs of the specification could not be performed, and associated advantages could not be obtained, by any alleged practice of the claimed invention in the human mind without the associated hardware and the assistance of a special purpose computer programmed to apply the specialized algorithms disclosed in the specification of the present application and recited in the claims.
[...]
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is evident that claim 1 of the instant application does not recite a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, that falls within any of the three groups of abstract ideas that are enumerated in the 2019 101 Guidelines.
As a result, for at least the foregoing reasons, independent claim 1 is patent eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception under Prong One of the revised Step 2A of the 2019 101 Guidelines.
Independent claim 11 recites similar features as discussed above with regard to independent claim 1. Accordingly, similar remarks as set forth above with regard to claim 1 also apply to claim 11.
Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, claims 1 and 11 are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception under Prong One of the revised Step 2A of the 2019 101 Guidelines.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 12-13 are patent eligible at least by virtue of their dependencies on independent claim 1 or 11 and for additional features that they recite.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the claim can be practically performed by the human mind. While Applicant’s Specification does provide ample evidence of it not being easy for a person to view as shown by Applicnat’s Remarks; Applicant’s Specification states in page 5 - “It may be however difficult for a person who views the real residence or information (e.g., the floor plan) indicating the residence to image the amount of possessions in the future.” The examiner respectfully notes that “may be” represents that it may be difficult or it may not be difficult for a person to view the real residence or information (e.g., the floor plan) indicating the residence to image the amount of possessions in the future (from applicant’s argument from the previous argument) and how it relates “to showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living” (from claim). Thus, in the alternative the human mind it may not be difficult to view the real residence or information (e.g., the floor plan) indicating the residence to image the amount of possessions in the future (from applicant’s argument from the previous argument) and how it relates “to showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living” (from claim). Thus, the claim encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. 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.
In addition, the only additional elements claimed are an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, p. 12 lines 30-34). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, in summary claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13 recites an abstract idea which falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Step 2A - Prong Two
Applicant Argues: [...]
These advantages directly result from the specifically claimed features, as newly- amended in this paper. Accordingly, consistent with the directives of MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).II., the use of the claimed features provide specific technological improvements over conventional information processing devices and methodologies.
Amended claim 1 of the instant application is clearly directed to improvements in an information processing device and associated methodology that provides future information about the amount of possessions that a user will own in the future so that the user can obtain an appropriate facility or the facility can improve on how it secures an appropriate space for the user based on the future information.
It is evident, as discussed above with regard to the above-quoted paragraphs throughout the specification of the present application, how the claimed features result in an improved functioning of the disclosed information processing devices and methodologies as well as an improvement in the associated technical field.
In general, the life stages of people change in accordance with the aging of the people, and the amount or type of their possessions changes in accordance with the life stages. When a person is selecting a facility, the space of the facility is important. However, there is an existing problem in this technical field that it is difficult for the person to image the amount of possessions in the future, and the person cannot thus easily estimate the space required. In this regard, Applicant refers to the discussion in the second through fourth full paragraphs at page 5 of the specification of the present application.
A user who has received the future information recited in independent claim 1 of the
present application can easily image the amount of possessions that the user would own in future. With this, independent claim 1 of the present application produces the technical advantageous effect of contributing to the user's obtainment of an appropriate facility or to the improvement of the facility to secure an appropriate space for the user.
The USPTO Memorandum dated August 4, 2025 entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" included similar directives in this regard in the "Improvements consideration" paragraph on page 4 indicating that "... rt]he specification does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification." The first paragraph of page 5 of this August 4, 2025 Memorandum goes on to indicate that "... [c]laims that are determined to improve computer capabilities or improve technology or a technical field support a finding that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (emphasis added)...."
It is respectfully submitted that the claims of the present application, especially as
amended, are not directed to an abstract idea, but instead are clearly integrated into a practical application of information processing devices and methodologies that obtain future information indicating possessions to be owned by one or more users in future by correcting standard information using amount information obtained, and providing the future information.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The purported improvement of “Amended claim 1 of the instant application is clearly directed to improvements in an information processing device and associated methodology that provides future information about the amount of possessions that a user will own in the future so that the user can obtain an appropriate facility or the facility can improve on how it secures an appropriate space for the user based on the future information” lies within the abstract idea itself. Of Note, the claim itself does not recite certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to secure an appropriate space for the user) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
The examiner respectfully notes the only additional elements claimed are an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, p. 12 lines 30-34). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: [...]
It is thus evident from at least the above-underlined portions of claim 1 that the claims of the present application are therefore directed to a particular, limited application of an information processing device and associated methodology which obtains future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained, and providing the future information to one or more users so that the user(s) can easily image the amount of possessions that the user(s) would own in the future.
As a result, the claims of the present application do not monopolize any abstract idea in practice.
For the foregoing reasons, the configuration recited in claim 1 of the present application thus includes additional elements that apply or use any alleged judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes the features underlined fall within the abstract idea (i.e., obtaining attribute information and possession information, the attribute information including ages of one or more users at a reference point in time, the possession information indicating possessions owned by the one or more users at the reference point in time; the obtaining amount information indicating an amount of the possessions owned by the one or more users, by referring to standard information indicating standard spaces determined in advance for ages of people and occupied by standard possessions owned by the people and by comparing standard spaces for the one or more users obtained from the attribute information and the standard information to spaces occupied by the possessions indicated by the possession information; and obtaining future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained).
The examiner respectfully notes the only additional elements claimed are an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, p. 12 lines 30-34). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: In the foregoing remarks, Applicant explains that various technological improvements and advantages are described in the specification of the present application. These technological improvements and advantages directly result from the specifically claimed features which also are drafted to include limitations that confine any alleged judicial exception to a particular, practical application of an information processing device and methodology that obtains and provides future information indicating possessions to be owned by one or more users, thereby contributing to a functional improvement of a computer.
[...]
As a result, by providing the combination of features of amended claim 1 of the present application, the presently claimed invention provides technological solutions to the identified technological problems as discussed in the foregoing remarks.
Accordingly, the presently claimed invention, when taken as a whole, provides a technological solution to a technological problem that provides an improvement to the technological field, and also that provides a functional improvement of a computer, and as such, the presently claimed invention is integrated into a practical application
[...]
Consistent with the above-discussed decision, independent claim 1 of the present
application recites improvements associated with recited logical structures and processes,
including a recitation of the above-discussed principle that future information indicating possessions to be owned by one or more users is obtained and provided to the one or more users by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained. Applicant respectfully submits that such recited features are logical structures and processes that provide particular improvements and advantages that directly result from these claimed features including improvements and advantages discussed in the above-quoted portions of the specification in this regard.
With regard to the Examiner's "apply it" assertions at pages 8 and 9 of the Office Action,the above-discussed August 4, 2025 USPTO Memorandum goes on to direct that
Examiners are cautioned not to oversimplify claim limitations and expand the application of the "apply it" consideration, 15 Moreover, examiners are reminded that the "apply it" consideration often overlaps with the improvements consideration.16
For example, the examiner should consider whether the technological limitations are being used as a tool to improve the recited judicial exception (e.g., automating a manual business process) or whether the claim as a whole provides an improvement to technology or a technical field.17 It is evident from the foregoing remarks that the above-discussed recitations of independent claim 1 result in claim 1 as a whole providing an improvement to technology or a technical field.
Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant thus respectfully submits that any alleged recited judicial exception in independent claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and, under the USPTO's 2019 101.
Guidelines, the claim should be deemed to be eligible because it is not directed to any recited judicial exception.
Independent claim 11 recites similar features as discussed above with regard to independent claim 1. Accordingly, similar remarks as set forth above with regard to claim 1 also apply to claim 11.Based on the foregoing discussion, claims 1 and 11 are clearly patent eligible at Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 101 Guidelines.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 12-13 are patent eligible at least by virtue of their dependencies on independent claim 1 or 11 and for additional features that they recite.
For the foregoing reasons, itis respectfully submitted that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes the only additional elements claimed are an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, p. 12 lines 30-34). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., obtaining attribute information and possession information, the attribute information including ages of one or more users at a reference point in time, the possession information indicating possessions owned by the one or more users at the reference point intime; the obtaining amount information indicating an amount of the possessions owned by the one or more users, by referring to standard information indicating standard spaces determined in advance for ages of people and occupied by standard possessions owned by the people and by comparing standard spaces for the one or more users obtained from the attribute information and the standard information to spaces occupied by the possessions indicated by the possession information; and obtaining future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained, and providing the future information, wherein the obtaining of the future information includes: obtaining, as the future information, an image obtained by combining a three- dimensional (3D) image showing the possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future with a 3D image showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living and presenting the future information to the one or more users resulting in the one or more users viewing the future information and thus viewing the space to be occupied by their possessions as placed in the facility in the future so that the one or more users are presented with information indicating the space required in the facility in the future.). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Inventive Concept – Step 2B of 2019 101 Guidelines
Applicant Argues: Moreover, assuming, for the sake of argument alone, that it might be asserted the amended claims are not patent eligible at Prong One or Prong Two of Step 2A, Applicant 26 respectfully submits that the amended claims are patent eligible at Step 2B because the above discussed additional limitations of the claims are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Instead, Applicant submits that the additional limitations of the amended claims provide an inventive concept because the elements of the claims do not perform routine or conventional activities previously known to the industry.
In the second paragraph of page 9 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that "[t]hese additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The Office Action's analysis of the Step 2B, Prong Two portion of the 2019 101 Guidelines is respectfully traversed, because at least claim 1 is directed to a particular, limited application of an information processing device and associated methodology which obtains future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained, and providing the future information to one or more users so that the user(s) can easily image the amount of possessions that the user(s) would own in the future, as discussed in the previous section with regard to integration into a practical application.
[...]
Even further, for the reasons discussed in the previous section with regard to integration of any judicial exception into a practical application via its meaningful additional limitations, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 thus includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception itself.
Independent claim 11 recites similar features as discussed above with regard to independent claim 1. Accordingly, similar remarks as set forth above with regard to claim 1 also apply to claim 11.
Based on the foregoing discussion, claims 1 and 11 are clearly patent eligible at Step 2B of the 2019 101 Guidelines.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 12-13 are patent eligible at least by virtue of their dependencies on independent claim 1 or 11 and for additional features that they recite.
In view of the above, Applicant submits that the claims of the present application are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and it is kindly requested that the rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn
Examiner’s Response: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. The additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11-13, i.e., an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful 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 itself. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The foregoing remarks and above-discussed claim amendments were presented to the Examiner during the above-discussed Examiner interview. The Examiner indicated during the interview that he does not believe that the foregoing remarks in support of patent eligibility are sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 without some further claim amendments.
Applicant's undersigned representative responded during the interview that the features performed by the processor in independent claim 1 of the present application were far too complex to be performed in the human mind. Applicant's undersigned representative also 29 referred to the USPTO Memorandum dated August 4, 2025 entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" as discussed in the foregoing remarks. Applicant's undersigned representative explained that this Memorandum directs Examiners to recall that "[t]he mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind (emphasis added)."
However, the Examiner maintained his position during the interview that the subject features of claim 1 are not the type of subject matter that typically bring a claim within the realm of patent eligible subject matter. In this regard, the Examiner asserted that independent claim 1 is currently quite broad. The Examiner suggested that independent claim 1 be amended to more precisely recite how the correcting of the standard information occurs combined with any associated technology disclosed in the specification.
[...] Accordingly, in the interest of advancing the prosecution of this application, Applicant has opted to proceed in this paper with further amending independent claim 1 in a manner consistent with the Examiner's helpful suggestions during the interview to now more precisely recite that
[...]
Applicant respectfully submits that such features produce the technical advantageous effect of contributing to the user's obtainment of an appropriate facility or to the improvement of the facility to secure an appropriate space for the user. As a result, these features clearly bolster the foregoing remarks in this response in support ofpatent eligibility.
Newly-amended independent claim 1 is thus patent eligible for at least the foregoing reasons.
Independent claim 11 is amended in this paper to recite similar features as discussed above with regard to amended independent claim 1. Accordingly, similar remarks as set forth above with regard to claim 1 also apply to claim 11.
Based on the foregoing discussion, claims 1 and 11 are clearly patent eligible under the USPTO's 2019 101 Guidelines.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 12-13 are patent eligible at least by virtue oftheir dependencies on independent claim 1 or 11 and for additional features that they recite.
In view of the above, Applicant submits that the claims ofthe present application are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and it is kindly requested that the rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth above, specifically in light of reading Applicant’s Specification states in page 5 - “It may be however difficult for a person who views the real residence or information (e.g., the floor plan) indicating the residence to image the amount of possessions in the future.” The examiner respectfully notes that “may be” represents that it may be difficult or it may not be difficult for a person to view the real residence or information (e.g., the floor plan) indicating the residence to image the amount of possessions in the future. Please see remarks above. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-2 and 4-13 are directed to a process, machine, and/or manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A
obtaining attribute information and possession information, the attribute information including ages of one or more users at a reference point in time, the possession information indicating possessions owned by the one or more users at the reference point intime;
the obtaining amount information indicating an amount of the possessions owned by the one or more users, by referring to standard information indicating standard spaces determined in advance for ages of people and occupied by standard possessions owned by the people and by comparing standard spaces for the one or more users obtained from the attribute information and the standard information to spaces occupied by the possessions indicated by the possession information; and
obtaining future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained, and providing the future information, wherein
the obtaining of the future information includes:
obtaining, as the future information, an image obtained by combining a three- dimensional (3D) image showing the possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future with a 3D image showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living and presenting the future information to the one or more users resulting in the one or more users viewing the future information and thus viewing the space to be occupied by their possessions as placed in the facility in the future so that the one or more users are presented with information indicating the space required in the facility in the future.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11-13 includes obtaining attribute information and possession information, the attribute information including ages of one or more users at a reference point in time, the possession information indicating possessions owned by the one or more users at the reference point intime; the obtaining amount information indicating an amount of the possessions owned by the one or more users, by referring to standard information indicating standard spaces determined in advance for ages of people and occupied by standard possessions owned by the people and by comparing standard spaces for the one or more users obtained from the attribute information and the standard information to spaces occupied by the possessions indicated by the possession information; and obtaining future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained, and providing the future information wherein the obtaining of the future information includes: obtaining, as the future information, an image obtained by combining a three- dimensional (3D) image showing the possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future with a 3D image showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living and presenting the future information to the one or more users resulting in the one or more users viewing the future information and thus viewing the space to be occupied by their possessions as placed in the facility in the future so that the one or more users are presented with information indicating the space required in the facility in the future, thus claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13 falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13, i.e., an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13, includes obtaining attribute information and possession information, the attribute information including ages of one or more users at a reference point in time, the possession information indicating possessions owned by the one or more users at the reference point intime; the obtaining amount information indicating an amount of the possessions owned by the one or more users, by referring to standard information indicating standard spaces determined in advance for ages of people and occupied by standard possessions owned by the people and by comparing standard spaces for the one or more users obtained from the attribute information and the standard information to spaces occupied by the possessions indicated by the possession information; and obtaining future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained, and providing the future information wherein the obtaining of the future information includes: obtaining, as the future information, an image obtained by combining a three- dimensional (3D) image showing the possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future with a 3D image showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living and presenting the future information to the one or more users resulting in the one or more users viewing the future information and thus viewing the space to be occupied by their possessions as placed in the facility in the future so that the one or more users are presented with information indicating the space required in the facility in the future, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. 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, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13, recite i.e., an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, p. 12 lines 30-34). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-1 3recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11-13, i.e., an information processing device w/ processor and terminal/display and medium; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4-10, claims 2 and 4-10 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) i.e., further features related to future processions and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Reasons For No Prior Art Rejection
The closest prior art made of record pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yalniz et al. (US 20150363943 A1) discusses Disclosed are various embodiments for generating recommendations utilizing visual image analysis. A digital image provided by a client device is analyzed to identify an empty region in a setting embodied in the digital image. A recommended item, available for consumption via an electronic commerce system, may be identified based on characteristics of the setting embodied in the digital image and historical data associated with a user. A modified form of the digital image is generated comprising the recommended item in the empty region. (Abstract).
POLANÍA CABRERA et al. discusses Examples disclosed herein are relevant to systems, methods, and other technology for determining furniture compatibility. For example, graph neural networks (GNNs) that leverage relational information between furniture items in a set may be used as models to predict a compatibility score indicative of visual compatibility of furniture items across the set. In one implementation, the GNN-based model can extend the concept of a siamese network to multiple inputs and branches and use a generalized contrastive loss function. In another implementation, the GNN-based model learns both an edge function and the function that generates the compatibility score. The predicted compatibility score can be used for a variety of purposes, including furniture item recommendations. (Abstract).
KRONSCHEWSKI discusses A furnishing planning system in particular for assisting with the selection of the number, arrangement and/or configuration of pieces of furniture and/or the ordering of same, includes at least one simulation device configured for simulating the space requirement of a piece of furniture in a real space to be furnished (Abstract)
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Regarding claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11-13, the prior art of record as cited within this Office Action, nor those cited, in the additional references cited, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious “obtaining attribute information and possession information, the attribute information including ages of one or more users at a reference point in time, the possession information indicating possessions owned by the one or more users at the reference point intime; the obtaining amount information indicating an amount of the possessions owned by the one or more users, by referring to standard information indicating standard spaces determined in advance for ages of people and occupied by standard possessions owned by the people and by comparing standard spaces for the one or more users obtained from the attribute information and the standard information to spaces occupied by the possessions indicated by the possession information; and obtaining future information indicating possessions to be owned by the one or more users in future by correcting the standard information using the amount information obtained, and providing the future information , wherein the obtaining of the future information includes: obtaining, as the future information, an image obtained by combining a three- dimensional (3D) image showing the possessions to be owned by the one or more users in the future with a 3D image showing a facility in which at least one of the users considers living and presenting the future information to the one or more users resulting in the one or more users viewing the future information and thus viewing the space to be occupied by their possessions as placed in the facility in the future so that the one or more users are presented with information indicating the space required in the facility in the future.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights