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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 9/30/2025 has been entered. In the amendment, claims 1-19 were amended and claim 20 was added. No claims were cancelled. As such, claims 1-20 are pending.
The objections to the drawings and specification set forth in the previous office action
are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification and drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to an abstract idea in the previous office action have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s reliance on “USPTO’s August 4, 2025 Memorandum”, suggesting criteria for assessing the claims under U.S.C. § 101 (Applicant’s Remarks pages 15-16 and 19-21), the Examiner notes that the Memo explicitly states that it “is not intended to announce any new USPTO guidance or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” Memo at 1.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that “the claims do not ‘recite’ the rejection’s alleged exception”, “the specification does not indicate that the claim features represent any performance in the human mind or with pen and paper - nor would that be what one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret from the claims” and “the rejection's Step 2A Prong 1 conclusion is not consistent with the specification… the rejection exceeded a BRI and should be withdrawn at Step 2A Prong 1” (Applicant’s Remarks pages 16-18), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not identify any specific claim limitation that was allegedly misinterpreted or interpreted broader than justified by the specification, and the argument is merely conclusory and non-persuasive. Furthermore, in light of the amendments to the claims, the claims are re-evaluated under the Alice/Mayo test, set forth in the rejection under U.S.C. § 101 below.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “the claims, previously or at least as currently pending, reflect ‘a particular solution’” (Applicant’s Remarks page 16), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts the originally-filed specification pages [0002-0009] describes “a problem in which the technology representing the relevance of a piece of data to another by a cause-and effect diagram was found deficient for not also indicating a magnitude or degree of such relevance and that the field would be improved by such an indication” (Applicant’s Remarks page 20). The alleged problem is presented in the original specification paragraph [0004] as: “Magnitude of influence that a factor gives on an effect may be different for each factor. However, a cause-and-effect diagram in Patent Document 1 does not represent such magnitude of influence of each factor”, this ‘problem’ is merely a lack of presenting specific data regarding influence metrics, and does not suggest an adequate technological problem in relation to a computer or technical field.
The Examiner notes Applicant’s statement (Applicant’s Remarks, page 21) requesting that the Office provide an amendment that would overcome the U.S.C. § 101 rejection, if the rejection is maintained. However, the Examiner respectfully declines to suggest or propose any claim amendments at this this stage in the prosecution, as the application remains under the provisions of this Final Office Action. For the reasons previously discussed in the previous Non-Final Office Action and the further analysis set forth below, the rejection of claims 1-19 under U.S.C. § 101 is hereby maintained. Examiner suggests that Applicant schedule an interview if they wish to discuss potential amendment strategies.
Additionally, newly added claim 20 which depends from amended independent claim 1,
has been fully considered under the Alice/Mayo test, and is rejected for the same reasons set
forth with respect to independent claim 1, as claim 20 does not include additional elements
that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas identified in the analysis of independent claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the previous office action have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s assertion that Takada in view of Ambichl does not teach or suggest the amended claim and that the references as cited by the rejection and overall does not remedy the deficiencies of Takada in view of Ambichl (Applicant’s Remarks page 22), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “Takada in view of Ambichl does not disclose or reasonably suggest the following of claim 1: ‘generating the-cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining presence or absence of a display relating to teach of the plurality of explanatory variables in the cause-and-effect diagram’”, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because this amended claim language merely rephrases the original phrase limitation of “determining a display aspect for a display relating to each explanatory variable or presence or absence of the display”, excluding the ‘display aspect’ term, and does not substantially change the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the Examiner has applied the relevant portions of cited art Takada to the newly-recited limitations of independent claim 1, and independent claim 10. In particular and as further discussed in section U.S.C. § 103 Rejection below, Takada Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4 and Col. 12 lines 21-33, collectively teaches the limitation recited in the independent claims. In addition to the previously discussed features, Takada also teaches the limitations of the newly added claim 20, as set forth below.
Applicant’s remarks that the rejections of dependent claims 2-9, and 11-18 should be withdrawn “at least by those claims’ dependencies and as Sen also does not remedy at least the above-described deficiencies of Takada in view of Ambichl” (Applicant’s Remarks, page 22), is fully acknowledged. However, in light of the rejections of the independent claims set forth below, this argument is unpersuasive.
Although claims 1-19 were amended, the arguments presented by the Applicant are unpersuasive, as the prior art applied in the previous Non-Final Office Action remains pertinent to the amended claims. As detailed below the previously-applied combination of references (Takada, Ambichl and Sen) teaches all of the limitations of amended claims 1-19 (including independent claims 1, 10 and 19) and of new claim 20.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim is directed to an analysis apparatus, corresponding to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable1 and the plurality of explanatory variables,
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining a presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables2 in the cause-and-effect diagram
In particular, the generation of a cause-and-effect diagram that represents a relationship between variables can be associated with the evaluation and observation of said variable data. Additionally, determining a display presence or absence of a display relating to each variable or the displays presence or absence, is observing a display based on explanatory variable data.
Given a sufficiently small dataset of relationship information, nothing in the claim prohibits these processes from being performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
based on, among the degrees of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable
Claim 1 recites the additional elements: “An analysis apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:”, which are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system, content repository, and a processor), or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables is represented by one or more linear models,
and the degree of influence of the explanatory variable is represented by a coefficient by which the explanatory variable is multiplied in at least one linear model of the one or more linear models
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception of claim 1. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the relationship information indicates, for each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a plurality of degrees of influence of the plurality of explanatory variables,
a statistical value of the plurality of degrees of influence indicated by the relationship information for the explanatory variable
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram by handling the statistical value as the degree of influence of the explanatory variable
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: computing for each of the plurality of explanatory variables,
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: making a first display aspect different between a first display relating to a first explanatory variable as having a first degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value, and a second display relating to a second explanatory variable, other than the first explanatory variable as having a second degree of influence equal to or more than the threshold value,
making a second display aspect different between a third display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a first predetermined rank in order and a fourth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the first predetermined rank in order,
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, making a third display aspect different between a fifth display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a second predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group, and a sixth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the second predetermined rank in order among the other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group,
and wherein the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable are of the each of the plurality of explanatory variables, one of the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable is the explanatory variable, one of the first degree of influence and the second degree of influence is the degree of influence, and one of the first display, the second display, the third display, the fourth display, the fifth display, the sixth display is the display
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a first display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value,
allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a second display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence within a predetermined rank in order,
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, allowing the cause- and-effect diagram to include only a third display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence as within the predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group
and wherein one of the first display, the second display, and the third display is the display
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: outputting the cause-and-effect diagram;
and generating a graph by using the first data
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed to retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and generating, as the graph,
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
any of a first graph, representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable,
and a second graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed to retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises generating screen data including both the first graph and the second graph
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises allowing the graph to include second data on the objective variable
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible, Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 10:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a control method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable3 and the plurality of explanatory variables,
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining a presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables4 in the cause-and-effect diagram
In particular, the generation of a cause-and-effect diagram that represents a relationship between variables can be associated with the evaluation and observation of said variable data. Additionally, determining a display presence or absence of a display relating to each variable or the displays presence or absence, is observing a display based on explanatory variable data.
Given a sufficiently small dataset of relationship information, nothing in the claim prohibits these processes from being performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
based on, among the degrees of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables is represented by one or more linear models,
and the degree of influence of the explanatory variable is represented by a coefficient by which the explanatory variable is multiplied in at least one linear model of the one or more linear models
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception of claim 1. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the relationship information indicates, for each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a plurality of degrees of influence of the plurality of explanatory variables,
a statistical value of the plurality of degrees of influence indicated by the relationship information for the explanatory variable,
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram by handling the statistical value as the degree of influence of the explanatory variable
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and the control method further comprising: computing for each of the plurality of explanatory variables,
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: making a first display aspect different between a first display relating to a first explanatory variable as having a first degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value, and a second display relating to a second explanatory variable, other than the first explanatory variable as having a second degree of influence equal to or more than the threshold value,
making a second display aspect different between a third display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a first predetermined rank in order and a fourth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the first predetermined rank in order,
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, making a third display aspect different between a fifth display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a second predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group, and a sixth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the second predetermined rank in order among the other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group,
and wherein the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable are of the each of the plurality of explanatory variables, one of the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable is the explanatory variable, one of the first degree of influence and the second degree of influence is the degree of influence, and one of the first display, the second display, the third display, the fourth display, the fifth display, the sixth display is the display
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprising any of: allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a first display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value,
allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a second display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence within a predetermined rank in order,
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, allowing the cause- and-effect diagram to include only a third display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence as within the predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group
and wherein one of the first display, the second display, and the third display is the display
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
The following additional elements are 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
further comprising: outputting the cause-and-effect diagram;
and generating a graph by using the first data
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed to retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
further comprising: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and generating, as the graph,
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
any of a first graph, representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable,
and a second graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed to retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
further comprising: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 16.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 16.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
further comprising generating screen data including both the first graph and the second graph
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
further comprising: allowing the graph to include second data on the objective variable
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible, Therefore, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 19:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
and generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable5 and the plurality of explanatory variables,
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining a presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables6 in the cause-and-effect diagram
In particular, the generation of a cause-and-effect diagram that represents a relationship between variables can be associated with the evaluation and observation of said variable data. Additionally, determining a display presence or absence of a display relating to each variable or the displays presence or absence, is observing a display based on explanatory variable data.
Given a sufficiently small dataset of relationship information, nothing in the claim prohibits these processes from being performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
based on, among the degrees of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable
Claim 19 recites the additional element: “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute operations comprising:”, which is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system, content repository, and a processor), or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein genera