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 1-13 are pending for examination. This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an obtainer that obtains attribute information... in Claim 11 (support is found in Applicant’s Specification p. 12 lines 30-34), a calculator that obtains... amount information in claim 11 (support is found in Applicant’s Specification p. 12 lines 30-34), a provider that obtains and provides further information... in Claim 11 (support is found in Applicant’s Specification p. 12 lines 30-34).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-13 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) 1-13 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.
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, 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, 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 2-10, claims 2-10 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.”
Conclusion
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