HANGAR CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 3, 2020

15316516 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/316,516 12/06/2016 Yutaka HIRAHARA PCT16-1016 8180
94133 7590 04/03/2020
Toshiyuki Yokoi
11500 S Eastern Ave #150
Henderson, NV 89052
EXAMINER
RINES, ROBERT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
jimu@yokoi.or.jp
yokoi@yokoi.or.jp
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUTAKA HIRAHARA
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516
Technology Center 3600
Before TAWEN CHANG, RYAN H. FLAX, and
CYNTHIA M. HARDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–7. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hangar
Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification states that, in conventional business practices, a
company, store, or other organization often plans events, such as bargain
sales, to mark milestones such as store opening, moving, closing, or
anniversaries. Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, “[t]he present
invention relates to a technology of delivering a date of a store/business
opening day, an anniversary day, a store/business closing day of a company,
a store or other organizations and an event information (e.g. auspicious
event) corresponding to the date.” ¶ 1.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a delivery system. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A delivery system, comprising:
a server;
a sponsor terminal; and
a user terminal, wherein
the server includes:
a communication interface for accepting an access
from the sponsor terminal or the user terminal to
transmit/receive data to/from the sponsor terminal or
the user terminal;
a memory for storing, in a respective cell of dates
of a calendar, an information identifying a sponsor, an
information of a store/business opening day of the
sponsor, an event information of the store/business
opening day, and an event information of an
anniversary date of the next and subsequent years of
the store/business opening day, the information
identifying the sponsor and the information of the
store/business opening day of the sponsor being in
association with each other; and
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

3
a first processor for controlling an operation of the
server and transmitting the event information to the
user terminal,
the sponsor terminal includes:
an input interface for receiving an input operation
to register in the server the information identifying the
sponsor, the information of the store/business opening
day of the sponsor, the event information of the
store/business opening day to be transmitted to the
user terminal; and
a communication unit for transmitting contents
registered by the input operation to the server,
the user terminal includes:
a display;
a communication section; and
a second processor for controlling an operation of
the user terminal,
wherein
the first processor of the server has functions of:
a registration processing section for receiving, by
the first processor, the information of the
store/business opening day from the sponsor terminal,
recording a date of the store/business opening day and
the information identifying the sponsor in the memory
in association with each other, specifying the
anniversary date of at least the next and subsequent
years of the store/business opening day by calculation,
and recording the specified anniversary information
indicating the anniversary date in the cell of the dates
of the calendar;
a store opening information delivery section for
transmitting, by the first processor, the information of
the store/business opening day, the information
identifying the sponsor related to the store/business
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

4
opening day and the event information of the
store/business opening day to the user terminal;
an update status determining section for judging,
by the first processor, whether or not the event
information of the sponsor terminal is updated within
a predetermined period of time;
an anniversary information delivery section for
transmitting, by the first processor, a first website
containing the anniversary information and the event
information of the anniversary date to the user
terminal when the event information is judged to be
updated within the predetermined period of time by
the update status determining section; and
a store closing information delivery section for
transmitting, by the first processor, a second website
containing an information indicating a possibility of
closing store/business of the sponsor to the user
terminal when the event information is judged not to
be updated within the predetermined period of time by
the update status determining section,
the second processor of the user terminal has functions
of:
a reception processing section for receiving the
first website and the second website; and
a display processing section for displaying the first
website and the second website on the display.
Appeal Br. 8–10 (Claims App.).

REJECTION
Claims 1–3 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.

Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

5
DISCUSSION
A. Issue
The Examiner concludes that claim 1 is directed to “the abstract idea
of organizing and delivering store event/calendar information to users,
which is reasonably considered to be a system/method for organizing and
directing actions and activities of human user.” Final Act. 14; see also
Answer 8 (Examiner also concludes that elements of the claims “are directed
to ineligible Human Mental Processing,” i.e., mental steps). The Examiner
further concludes that
[t]he additional element(s) or combination of elements in the
claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no
more than (i) mere instructions to store, retrieve and transmit
information pertaining to calendar events at a store using a
computer, and (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that
serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously
known to the pertinent industry.
Id.
Appellant contends that claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject
matter because, similar to the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), “the amended claim is directed to a
specific improvement to computer-related technology.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant does not separately argue the claims. We therefore limit
our analysis to claim 1 as representative. The issue with respect to this
rejection is whether claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether
claim 1 includes additional elements that provide “significantly more” than
the recited abstract idea.
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

6
B. Analysis
Unless otherwise noted, we adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and
reasoning regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (Final Act. 3–18; Ans. 4–16) and agree that claim 1 is unpatentable as
being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Only those
arguments timely made by Appellant in the briefs have been considered;
arguments not so presented in the briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Any bases for asserting error, whether factual
or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived.”). We highlight
the following points for emphasis.
We analyze this case under the framework the Supreme Court set
forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566
U.S. 66 (2012) and applied in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208 (2014). As the Supreme Court explained in Alice:
In Mayo . . . , we set forth a framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications
of those concepts. First, we determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. . . .
If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before
us?” . . . To answer that question, we consider the elements of
each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination”
to determine whether additional elements “transform the nature
of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. . . . We have
described step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive
concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–218.
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

7
Whether Claim 1 is Directed to Patent-Ineligible Concept
We begin with the first step of the Mayo test, namely whether a claim
is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. On January 7, 2019, the Director
of the USPTO issued the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance” (“Revised Guidance”), which provides further details regarding
how the Patent Office analyzes patent-eligibility questions under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019). Under the Revised Guidance, the
first step of the Mayo test (i.e., Step 2A of the Revised Guidance) is “a two-
pronged inquiry.” Id. at 54. In Step 2A’s prong one, we evaluate whether
the claim recites a judicial exception, such as laws of nature, natural
phenomena, or abstract ideas. Id. If the claim recites a judicial exception,
the claim is further analyzed under Step 2A’s prong two, which requires
“evaluat[ion of] whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate
the exception into a practical application of that exception.” Id. The
Revised Guidance explains that, “[i]f the recited exception is integrated into
a practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong
Two of . . . Step 2A [of the Revised Guidance].” Id.
Prong One of Step 2A of Revised Guidance
Following the Revised Guidance, we first consider whether claim 1
recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea.
Courts have held that patent-ineligible abstract ideas include certain
methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic
practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior
or relationships or interactions between people. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at
219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611. Abstract ideas also include mental
processes, including subject matter that covers performance in the mind but
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

8
for the recitation of generic computer components. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v.
First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(holding that computer-implemented method for “anonymous loan
shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans
without a computer”).
We determine that all the elements of claim 1, collectively as an
ordered combination, recite a system for receiving, calculating, storing,
judging, transmitting, and/or displaying information relating to “a
store/business opening day . . . , an event information of the store/business
opening day, and an event information of an anniversary date of the next and
subsequent years of the store business opening day,” which is a system for
performing a method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial
interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities) similar to
other concepts that have been identified by the courts as abstract. See, e.g.,
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that
claims directed to “displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to
copyrighted media” are directed to an abstract idea rather than to patent-
eligible subject matter).
We note that claim 1 also recites a mental process, which also falls
within the category of abstract ideas. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. In particular,
claim 1 recites, among other things, (1) “storing . . . an information
identifying a sponsor, an information of a store/business opening day of the
sponsor, an event information of the store/business opening day, and an
event information of an anniversary date of the next and subsequent years of
the store/business opening day, the information identifying the sponsor and
the information of the store/business opening day of the sponsor being in
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

9
association with each other”; (2) “specifying the anniversary date of at least
the next and subsequent years of the store/business opening day by
calculation,” and (3) “judging . . . whether or not . . . event information . . . is
updated within a predetermined period of time.” Appeal Br. 8–10 (Claims
App.).
Each of the above steps “covers performance in the mind but for the
recitation of generic computer components,” such as a memory and a
processor. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. They can also be practically be performed in
the mind. Id. Thus, they are similar to steps that have been identified as
abstract “mental processes” by the courts. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that,
other than generic computer-implemented steps, nothing in the claims
reciting “[a] post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a
computer network” comprising, among other things, “a database of business
rules . . . specifying an action for controlling the delivery of an e-mail
message” “foreclose [the claims] from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper”).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an
abstract idea. Final Act. 14.
Prong Two of Step 2A of Revised Guidance
Although claim 1 recites an abstract idea, it would still be patent-
eligible if “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into
a practical application of the exception,” i.e., if the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies]
on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This analysis requires
“[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

10
beyond the judicial exception(s)” and “evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application.” Id. at 54–55.
One of the “examples in which a judicial exception has not been
integrated into a practical application” is when “[a]n additional element . . .
merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.” Id. at 55.
In this case, in addition to the abstract idea of receiving, calculating,
storing, judging, transmitting, and/or displaying event information of a
store/business milestone (e.g., opening day or anniversary), claim 1 recites
only generic hardware and software elements such as a server, terminals,
communication interfaces/units/sections, input interface, memory, display,
and processors comprising generic elements identified by their function, e.g.,
“registration processing” section, various “information delivery” sections,
“update status determining section,” “reception processing sections,” and
“display processing section.”
Likewise, the recited functions of “accepting an access from . . .
terminal[s] . . . to transmit/receive data,” “storing . . . information” where
certain specified information are “in association with each other,” making
calculations based on provided information (i.e., “specifying [an]
anniversary date . . . of the . . . opening date . . . by calculation”), “judging
. . . whether . . . information . . . is updated within a predetermined period of
time,” transmitting different content (e.g., websites) based on whether
“information is judged . . . to be updated within the predetermined period of
time,” and receiving and displaying content (e.g., websites) are all
conventional functions of a computer.
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

11
In short, the elements in claim 1 in addition to the abstract idea are
merely “instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” and/or
merely “uses a computer as a tool to perform [the] abstract idea.” 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating that “[t]he Court in Alice made clear that a claim
directed to an abstract idea does not move into section 101 eligibility
territory by ‘merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation’”)
(alteration in original).
For the reasons discussed above, claim 1 recites an abstract idea and
does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly,
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Whether Claim 1 Amounts to “Significantly More”
Finally, the Revised Guidance directs us to consider whether claim 1
includes “additional elements . . . [that] provide[] ‘significantly more’ than
the recited judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. The Revised Guidance
states that an additional element that “simply appends well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified
at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, . . . is indicative that
an inventive concept may not be present.” Id.
Here, as discussed above, the only elements recited in claim 1, other
than the abstract idea itself, are a server, sponsor and user terminals,
communication interface/section/unit, memory, input interface, processors,
and a display. The Specification makes clear that these elements are generic
and conventional. For instance, the Specification describes an example of “a
sponsor-side communication device” (i.e., the “sponsor terminal” including
an “input interface” and a “communication unit”) that is simply “a laptop-
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

12
type information processing device.” Spec. 5:15–17. Likewise, the
Specification describes “a tablet-type information processing device” and “a
smart phone” as examples of “a user-side communication device” (i.e., the
“user terminal” including “a display,” “a communication section,” and “a
processor”). Id. at 5:19–21. Laptops, tablets, and smart phones are well-
known, conventional personal computing devices.
“The mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
223. Accordingly, the combination of elements recited in the system of
claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
itself, and under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the claim is ineligible for patenting.
Appellant’s Arguments
Citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.
Cir. 2014), Appellant contends that “the claimed invention includes features
that as a whole amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea,”
because “the update status determining section” and the “store closing
information delivery section” of claim 1 are directed to “specific
improvement[s] to computer-related technology.” Appeal Br. 6. In
particular, Appellant contends that
the update status determining section judges whether or not the
event information of the sponsor terminal is updated within a
predetermined period of time. This function cannot be
performed by the human since the human cannot always
monitor the update status of many sponsors. In addition, this
function is not a general function of the computer. In the
conventional website, even if the information of the sponsor is
seen on the website, the user cannot judge whether or not the
sponsor has already closed. The above described function of
the update status determining section can improve the reliability
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

13
of the website. Thus, computer-related technology can be
improved.
Appeal Br. 6–7.
Likewise, with respect to the “store closing information delivery
section,” Appellant contends that this section
transmits the second website (website for transmitting the
store/business closing day). The difference between the first
website and the second website is not merely the difference of
the content. The second website contains an information
indicating a possibility of closing store/business of the sponsor
judged by the update status determining section. Because of
this the user who receives the second website can know the
possibility of closing store/business of the sponsor. This
function is not a general function of the computer. This
function can significantly improve the effect of the
advertisement of the website using the computer. Thus,
computer-related technology can be improved.
Appeal Br. 8.
We are not persuaded. The claims in DDR Holdings relate to an e-
commerce system that generates a composite web page retaining a host
website’s “look and feel,” but displaying content from a third party (e.g., a
third party product information) when a user clicks on a hyperlink on the
host website (e.g., a third-party merchant advertisement). Thus, the claims
are “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” namely the
“challenge of retaining control over the attention of the customer” in view of
the “ephemeral nature of an Internet ‘location’ [and] the near-instantaneous
transport between these locations made possible by standard Internet
communication protocols.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257–1258.
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

14
In contrast, delivering information relating to events associated with
store/business milestones to users via a second website is not specific to the
realm of computer networks and may be solved generally in the same way
whether or not done by a computer or by a human being.2 Unlike
in DDR Holdings, therefore, the computer in claim 1 is merely used as a tool
to perform an abstract idea. Any improvement resulting from the claims is
not an improvement to computer-related technology, but rather to the
abstract idea of determining and displaying milestone events of a store or
business.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as directed to a judicial exception to patent-
eligible subject matter without significantly more. Claims 2, 3, and 5–7 are
not separately argued and fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7 101 Eligibility 1–3, 5–7

2 Appellant contends that the function of “judg[ing] whether or not the event
information of the sponsor terminal is updated within a predetermined
period of time” cannot be performed by a human being “since the human
cannot always monitor the update status of many sponsors.” Appeal Br. 6.
We note, however, that the claim does not require a particular number of
sponsors.
Appeal 2020-000544
Application 15/316,516

15
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED