Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Application No.17/467,517
`
`REMARKS
`
`Upon entry of the present paper, claim 1 will have been amended. New claims 33 and 34
`
`will have been submitted for the consideration by the Examiner. Thus, claims 1-34 are pending
`
`in the application.
`
`In view of the herein contained remarks, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration
`
`and withdrawal of the outstanding rejection set forth in the above-mentioned Official Action.
`
`Such action is now believed to be appropriate and proper and is thus respectfully requested, in
`
`due course.
`
`Initially, Applicant would like to thank the Examiner for acknowledging consideration of
`
`the documentslisted on the Form-1449 submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement on
`
`May25, 2023.
`
`In this regard, Applicant notes a Supplemental Information Disclosure Statementfiled
`
`October 20, 2023. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner consider the documents
`
`cited in the above noted Supplemental Information Disclosure Statement, and to confirm such
`
`consideration by the return of an appropriately signed and initialed copy of the Form PTO-1449
`
`attached to the above noted Supplemental Information Disclosure Statement.
`
`Substance of Interview
`
`Applicant wishes to make of record a telephone interview conducted between Applicant’s
`
`representative and Examiner Cobanoglu, who is in charge of the present application.
`
`In this
`
`regard, Applicant’s representative wishes to respectfully thank Examiner Cobanoglu for her
`
`courtesy and cooperation in conducting the above-noted interview on November 21, 2023.
`
`Applicant’s representative also thanks Examiner Cobanoglu for issuing the Applicant-Initiated
`
`{P64308 05998807.DOC}
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Application No.17/467,517
`
`Interview Summary dated November28, 2023, in which a substantially accurate summary of the
`
`substance of the interview wasset forth.
`
`During the above-noted interview, Applicant’s representative proposed an amendment to
`
`claim 1 and discussed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101.
`
`The Examiner indicated that the proposed amendment does not appear to overcome the
`
`rejection. Further possible amendments to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection have also
`
`been discussed. The Examiner suggested some possible amendments, for which Applicant’s
`
`representative thanked, and indicated that she would consider Applicant’s amendments and
`
`arguments, upon receipt of a formal response. However, no agreementhas been reached.
`
`The amendments submitted herewith are based on the discussion during the above-noted
`
`interview. In particular, the claims have been amended based on the Examiner’s suggestion
`
`during the above-noted interview. The above comprisesa record of the interview.
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
`
`In the outstanding Official Action, claims 1-32 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101
`
`because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
`
`By the present paper, without acquiescing in the propriety of the rejection, the claims are
`
`amendedbased onat least Figs. 45-48 and 51 andrelated disclosure in the specification, as well
`
`as paragraphs [0376]-[0377] of Applicant’s originally filed application. Applicant respectfully
`
`traverses the above noted rejection and submits that it is inappropriate, particularly in view of the
`
`language of claims 1-34 in the present response.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that, even if any judicial exception (abstract idea) is
`
`recited in claim 1 under Step 2A, Prong I (which Applicant does not admit), claim 1, as a whole,
`
`{P64308 05998807.DOC}
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Application No.17/467,517
`
`integrates any judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under Step 2A,
`
`Prong IL.
`
`In particular, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as a whole, improves a
`
`functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (MPEP §2106.05(a)).
`
`Claim 1 has been amendedbased onat least Fig. 45 and paragraphs [0101], [0376]-
`
`[0377] and [0407]-[0408] of Applicant’s originally filed application.
`
`Claim 1 generally relates to various embodiments in whichthe first server receives, from
`
`the information terminal, (i) identification information of the user and(11) permission
`
`information, to request for the biological information of the user. Whenthefirst server receives
`
`the requestfor the biological information of the user, including (i) identification information of
`
`the user together with (ii) permission information,the first server reads from the storages, the
`
`latest biological information of the user associated with the identification information. Thus, the
`
`biological information regarding the user is read from the storages only after the first server
`
`receives the permission information together with the requestfor the biological information.
`
`In
`
`other words, distribution/usageof the biological information in the first server is controlled by
`
`the user while the user is using the personalized menuservice, and thus, high security of the
`
`personal information is ensured while allowing the user to use the service (paragraph [0018] of
`
`the present application asfiled).
`
`In this regard, among other features, such features, when taken as an ordered
`
`combination, amount to an improvementin the technical field, by (i) allowing the user to use the
`
`service to obtain a personalized menu information, and at the same time, (ii) protecting the
`
`user ’s personal information by checking that permission information for accessing the biological
`
`information is received each time whenthefirst server receives a request of the biological
`
`information of the user for generating a personalized menu. Thus, such features, taken as an
`
`{P64308 05998807.DOC}
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Application No.17/467,517
`
`ordered combination, provide a specific improvement overprior art systems (which could not
`
`achieve the above-noted(1) and (11) at the same time, 1.e., which could not preventthe first server
`
`from reading the user’s biological information when requested while the user is using the
`
`personalized menuservice), resulting in an improved information managementsystem with
`
`improved security.
`
`Moreover, according to claim 1, the first server securely manages storages that store
`
`biological information of a user, and the functions/operations to generate the personalized menu
`
`recited in claim 1 is also installed in the first server in the network system in whichthefirst
`
`server, the second server and the information terminal are connected with and communicate each
`
`other.
`
`Thefirst server is a special server whichis called as an information bankthat securely
`
`managespersonal information stored in the storages in a concealed manner (paragraph [0101 )]).
`
`Morespecifically, the first server (information bank) securely and sequentially stores the
`
`biological information, by receiving the biological information from the biosensorvia the
`
`information terminal, and storing in a distributed and encrypted manner([0376], [0407]-[0408]).
`
`Thus, the personal information stored in the storages ofthe first server (information bank) is
`
`updated as required under the control of the information bank without needing a manual
`
`inputting operation by a userat the information terminal (paragraph [0101)).
`
`While the biological information is collected automatically (i.e. under the control of the
`
`first server without user’s input), the distribution/use of biological information is controlled by
`
`the user. As noted above,the first server reads the user’s personal information from the storages
`
`and provides the read personal information to the personalized menu generating application/tool
`
`installed in the first server (information bank) whenthe user’s identification information is
`
`received with permission information (paragraph [0377]). After the personalized menu
`
`{P64308 05998807.DOC}
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Application No.17/467,517
`
`generating application/tool installed in the first server receives the biological information, the
`
`first server generates and transmits the personalized menu information to the information
`
`terminal.
`
`By such an arrangement/distribution of the functionality within a network (i.e., secured
`
`data managementat the first server (information bank) and generation of a personalized menuat
`
`the first server), the personal information (biological information) is read and used only in the
`
`first server when the permission information is provided. Accordingly, the user’s sensitive
`
`personal information is not provided outside the first server, and thus, the leakage of the sensitive
`
`personal information to the third party (such as the second server) is prevented, and thus, the
`
`personal information of the useris further protected and secured (paragraph [0018]).
`
`Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim as a whole or in the ordered
`
`combination, provides an improvement in computer-functionality, by improving security by the
`
`inventive distribution of functionality within a network, similarly to Bascom GlobalInternet v.
`
`AT&TMobility LLC, 827 F. 3d 1341, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (MPEP 2016.05(a)(D)(ii)).
`
`In Bascom, while additional elements, such as local client computer, a remote ISP server,
`
`etc., are individually considered as well-known generic computer components, the system (as a
`
`whole) is found eligible by the installation ofa filtering tool at a specific location (ISP server),
`
`remote from the end-users.
`
`Similarly, in claim 1, by securely managing the biological information in a specific
`
`manner(1.e., collecting, storing and reading/distributing as specifically recited in claim 1) by the
`
`first server (information bank), and theinstallation of a personalized menu generating tool in the
`
`specific location, 1.e., in the first server, the security of the personal information is improved,
`
`resulting in an improved information management system.
`
`{P64308 05998807.DOC}
`
`19
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Application No.17/467,517
`
`Accordingly, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception (if any) into a
`
`practical application, and thus, is eligible under Prong II of Step 2A.
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`Similar reasonsare applied to all the claims depending from claim 1. In particular, new
`
`claims 33 and 34 recite further details of the secured managementof the storages by thefirst
`
`server, at least based on paragraphs [0376]-[0377] and Fig. 46 and paragraphs [0409]-[0411] of
`
`Applicant’s originally filed Application.
`
`Such additional limitations, taken as a whole or ordered combination, contribute to the
`
`improvementto the security of the sensitive personal information, and thus, amountto an
`
`improvement in computer-functionality and/or the technical field. Moreover, such claims are
`
`submitted to impose a meaningful limit which does not preempt/monopolize any method of
`
`organizing a human activity to which the claims maybe directed (according to the Examiner).
`
`For at least the above-noted reasons, Applicant submits that the pending claims clearly
`
`recite patent eligible subject matter and are all
`
`in full compliance with 35 U.S.C. §101.
`
`Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the asserted rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Applicant has argued only those portions of the Examiner’s statements necessary to
`
`overcomethe asserted rejection, but has not thereby admitted any other portion of the
`
`Examiner’s assertions.
`
`Accordingly, in view of the herein contained remarks, Applicant submits that he has now
`
`overcomethe outstanding rejection in the present application and respectfully requests an
`
`indication to such effect, in due course.
`
`{P64308 05998807.DOC}
`
`20
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Application No.17/467,517
`
`SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
`
`Applicant has made a sincere effort to place the present application into condition for
`
`allowance and believes that he has now done so. Applicant has amended a claim to be more
`
`clearly directed to a patent-eligible subject matter. Applicant has submitted several claims for
`
`the consideration by the Examiner. Applicant has made a telephoneinterview of record.
`
`Applicant has traversed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant has provided clear bases for the patentability of all the claims in
`
`the present application and respectfully request an indication to such effect, in due course.
`
`Any amendmentsto the claims which have been made in this amendment, and which
`
`have not been specifically noted to overcome a rejection based upon thepriorart, should be
`
`considered to have been madefor a purpose unrelated to patentability, and no estoppel should be
`
`deemedto attach thereto.
`
`If any additional fee is necessary, this is an express authorization to charge any other fees
`
`that may be required to preserve the pendency of the present application to Deposit Account No.
`
`19-0089.
`
`Should the Examiner have any questions or comments regarding this Response, or the
`
`present application,
`
`the Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned at the below-listed
`
`telephone number.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Naoko Ohashi/
`Reg. No. 66,999
`Naoko Ohashi
`
`Bruce H. Bernstein
`Reg. No. 29,027
`
`December29, 2023
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN,P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, VA 20191
`(703) 716-1191
`
`{P64308 05998807.DOC}
`
`21
`
`