DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants Request for Continued Examination received on February 6, 2026. Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-14 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims foreign priority to Japanese application 2002-052353 filed on March 28, 2022.
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
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants amendments to claims 1, 13, and 14 in the response filed on August 20, 2025. Claims 9-11 are canceled.
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 1-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 and 12-14 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a method of information processing (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 14 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 13. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
acquiring work logs that are work logs in which an operation of data selected by a user and a work other than the operation of the data performed between a start of creation of the data and the creation of the data are recorded, and include a feature of the data, wherein an acquisition range of the work logs is decided by dividing the feature of the data into character strings by morphological analysis to output a feature word and setting the acquisition range of the work logs from the start of creation of the data to a document having the feature word is specified or to a document having a date and time described in the feature word, wherein the feature of the data comprises at least one of a file name, a title, a body, a creator of a file, and an editor of a file;
correlating the activity logs generated by the plurality of different applications or services based on the feature word to generate a cross-application workflow with a timeline structure; and
generating and presenting a graphical interface for the cross-application workflow with the correlated activity logs for each user involved in the creation of the data, wherein said graphical interface comprises a segment of one or more tasks having at least a designated period by specifying an end of the work of which an interval with a subsequent work is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value or an end of a common work among a plurality of the users, as a boundary of the phase based on the acquired work logs.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. Collecting work logs based on specific document features, characteristics, or time ranges and presenting the features and characteristics of the data via a graphical user interface to a user recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “computer” and “graphical interface” language (preamble), the claim encompasses collecting work logs, annotating them, and presenting then to each user using his/her mind and/or pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The information processing apparatus in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program in Claim 13 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 13 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a processor [preamble] and graphical interface (Claim 1) non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program [preamble] and graphical interface (claim 13) and/or a computer [preamble] with graphical interface (Claim 14). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 13, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0038] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [The information processing apparatus10 is an apparatus used by a user and is, for example, a desktop or laptop personal computer] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 13, and 14 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-8 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8, 12-14 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants remarks begin on page 7 for the response on July 31, 2026 where the Applicant indicates the present status of the claims. Additionally the Applicant offers a description of the amendments, namely the amendments to claims 1, 13, and 14. and the cancellation of claims 9-11.
The arguments move to discussion of the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 (remarks page 8), where the Applicants traverse the rejection argue that the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception. The Applicants contend that machine generated logs from a plurality of applications or services including processor correlated activity logs based on a feature word to generate cross-application workflow with a timeline structure and present through a graphical interface the workflow and correlated activity locs for each user.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the argument is that the claims are not a mental process (remarks page 9). Applicants position is that the claims no longer recite work locs that a human observer could compile from personal recollection or manual review. The Applicant points to amended limitation of machine-generated activity logs generated from a plurality of different applications or services. Further, the Applicant argues that the claims require a processor to correlate the activity logs based on a feature word to generate a cross-application workflow. Applicants argue this limitation and the specific log formats don’t have a human readable representation.
The Examiner does not agree. The basis of the limitations do not rise above the mental processes group of abstract ideas. Specifically adding a limitation where a step is performed by a machine (e.g. computer) does not transform the otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Further, it’s simply application of a computer as a tool. The also applies to the position that a cross application has to be handled by a computer only is merely application to the technological field and does not confirm eligibility. The claims still qualify as a judicial exception applied to a computer, which is used as a tool in order to collect, analyze, and display data which are the primary steps outlined in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom S.A..
The arguments move to Step 2A, Prong 2 (Remarks page 10) where the Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applicant contends the cross-application with timeline structure produces a new data structure which is then rendered on a user interface. Applicants argue this as the technical problem addressed as reconstruction of cross-application workflow from machine generated activity logs where the problem is activity logs in disparate formats which is a problem that does not exist outside of computerized environment.
The Examiner does not agree. The claims are not integrated into a practical application, rather they are mere use of a computer in a generic and well known capacity, to perform the abstract idea. In MPEP2106.05(e) in the discussing of other meaningful limitations the Diamond v. Diehr example is discussed where it’s directly indicated that in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014). In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85.
Also, in the same section it is cited in relation to Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, In contrast, in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the court determined that the additional steps to "test prices and collect data based on the customer reactions" did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, because the steps were well-understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities. 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Applicant concludes with Step 2B and contend that the characterization of the claims does not account for amended claim language (Remarks page 12). The applicants position si that the activity logs across the plurality of different applications or services is based on feature word to generate cross-application workflow and this is more than apply it since the processor is not simply tailoring pre-existing, human comprehensible information to display. Rather it derives feature word to correlate otherwise disparate machine generated logs across applications or services. Applicant claims the rule based mechanism is similar to McRO where the inventive concept improved a computer system. Applicant also cites Enfish and the claims limiting specific combinations (Remarks page 13)
The Examiner does not agree with the Applicant. The claims are directed to mere presentation of collected data which is stored in a work log. There is no disclosure of where the invention improves or allows for efficient visualization. The claims simply state presentation of acquired work logs where the presentation includes one or more tasks having a period specifying the end of work in which the interval was greater than a threshold. This is not the same as creating an efficient visualization of complex work logs.
Additionally, Applicants cite McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. in the Federal Circuit held the ordered combination new and useful and therefore patent eligible. The arguments include that the claims include specific rules (boundary rules, application identification rules) to automate a task previously performed by a humans. Applicant argues the claims are a limited technical approach that yields new and useful results.
The Examiner disagrees for a couple of reasons. First, there are not stated rules in the disclosure for the process as performed by a computer. Further, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) specifically deals with this in i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);. Both of these citation relate the rules or algorithms being applied on a generic computer. In this instance the collection and analysis of work logs when performed by a computer is not more than use of a computer as a tool to perform what was previously a human function. Further, the argument for using a processor to perform the functions that the courts have deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity or insignificant extra-solution activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
Additionally, the claims do not contain any rules not does the specification outline any specific rules related to the claims in order to have the computer perform a function it could not previously perform before McRO. Moreover, MPEP section 2106.05(a) discloses examples the courts have indicated may not bu sufficient including
In summary, the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 remains and the claims are not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights