The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 20 March 2026. THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 9-16, 18-19 are pending.
Claims 6-8, 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 9-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-5, 9-16, 18-19 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5, 9-16, 18-19
(Independent Claims)
With regards to claim 1 / 18, the claim recites a machine / process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: Claim 1, in part, recites
“generate an algorithm based on an accumulation of learning data wherein the accumulated learning data includes specific learning data that is associated with a keyword; generate, based on the accumulated learning data, a first output; generate, based on a change in the specific learning data, a second output” (mental process), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “generate”, in the limitation citied above encompasses creating / evaluating / adjusting data processing model & data (by a human programmer), which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator;
“determine a magnitude of change between the first output and the second output, wherein the first output is generated before the change in the specific learning data, and the second output is generated after the change in the specific learning data” (mental process), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determine”, “generated”, in the limitation citied above encompasses creating / evaluating / adjusting data processing model & data (by a human programmer), which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator;
“one of delete or correct, based on the determined magnitude of change, the specific learning data; adjust, with respect to the algorithm, a degree of influence associated with the specific learning data based on one of the deletion of the specific learning data or the correction of the specific learning data, wherein the degree of influence indicates an influence of the specific learning data on output information from the algorithm” (mental process), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “delete”, “correct”, “adjust”, in the limitation citied above encompasses creating / evaluating / adjusting data processing model & data (by a human programmer), which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator;
If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of (a) generic computer elements (like a processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))); (b) “… to relearn based on new learning data obtained after the adjustment of the degree of influence” (mere application of judiciary exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); (c) “output information regarding the relearn of the algorithm” (insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or WURC (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), it appeared that this limitation is using computer to implement a classifier model. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (c), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). There is no additional elements showing integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and/or providing anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element is merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “… to relearn based on new learning data obtained after the adjustment of the degree of influence” is mere application of judiciary exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “output information regarding the relearn of the algorithm” is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or WURC (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-5, 9-16, 19 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the learning data is based on data accumulated under a use environment of the algorithm”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the learning data includes data regarding the output information from the algorithm and the output information from the algorithm is based on input information of a user to the algorithm”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites “… to extract a specific learning history matching from learning histories of the algorithm a predetermined condition is extracted from among learning histories of the algorithm based on a database in which data regarding the input information is recorded and the specific learning history matches a specific condition”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites “to adjust a degree of influence associated with derived from the learning data corresponding to the specific learning history”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the specific learning data is designated by a user”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the specific learning data includes user data, and the user data is data regarding a user”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 11, the claim recites “wherein the user data includes position information regarding a position of the user”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the user data includes preference information regarding a preference of the user”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites “wherein the algorithm is relearned based on a change in the user data”, which is mere application of judiciary exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites “wherein the specific learning data includes data regarding a trend”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the learning data includes data regarding ethics”, which adds further details for the data processing steps that can be performed by a human programmer, which is directed to an abstract idea. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites “wherein the algorithm is relearned in accordance with based on a period elapsed from a predetermined specific period”, which is mere application of judiciary exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 19, the claim recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to update the database based on a change in the specific learning data”, which is extra-solution activity of data input/output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). There is no additional elements showing integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and/or providing anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 March 2026 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections,
1)Applicant argued that (p.8-9) ….
PNG
media_image1.png
202
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
263
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner response: Human can adjust a data processing model to improve results, e.g., a human program manager can write a spread sheet type of table on paper and to adjust it to accomplish certain data processing task. This is similar to the nature of the process claimed, hence the application is not patent eligible.
2) Applicant argued that (p.10-13) ….
PNG
media_image3.png
198
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
193
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image5.png
386
773
media_image5.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image6.png
276
761
media_image6.png
Greyscale
….
Examiner response: the enhancement improves the processing using abstract data models which is an abstract idea. Improving an abstract idea is still an abstract idea. As stated earlier, the claimed process of adjusting based on data observed can be performed by a human programmer. Except citing generic computer to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element identified showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The 101 rejection is maintained. See 101 rejection section for more detailed analysis.
3) To overcome the issues, suggest Applicant to include additional inventive concept elements into claims: (1) to show integration into a practical application; and/or (2) to show a specific physical implementation that is not WURC; (3) that is not practical for human mind to process and not WURC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights