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. No claims are canceled at this time.
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for amending the title of the invention to be more descriptive.
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 12-14are 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; and
presenting the acquired work logs for each user involved in the creation of the data, wherein said presenting comprises presenting a phase including 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 or characteristics and presenting the features and characteristics of the data to a user recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “computer” 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] (Claim 1) non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program [preamble] (claim 13) and/or a computer [preamble] (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 of the response on February 6, 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, where the Applicants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception. The argument is that the examiner relies on the steps collect, analyze, and display performed by a generic computer and the Applicant points to the claim amendments (remarks page 8).
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the applicant argues that the claim(s), as a whole, are not directed to an mental process. The Applicant disagrees with the Office Action and states that the claims require computer specific processing beyond human capability. Specifically the Applicant presents claim 1 (remarks page 8) and states it’s not a scenario where a human merely “reviews logs with pen and paper” and the claims require “automated morphological analysis”, “temporal correlation across heterogeneous logs”, “multi-use association logic” and “algorithmic phase boundary determination”. Pointing to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) the applicant recites where a mental process cannot practically be performed in the mind, even if the individual steps might appear conceptually understandable in isolation. The Applicant argues that the claims require computer-executed analysis operating over digital work logs generated by multiple applications and user over extended periods.
The Examiner does not agree with the arguments. The concept of reviewing work logs based on specific data and presenting them to a user is an abstract idea. The argument that the claims need to be computer executed for various reasons is not more than application of a generic computer on the judicial exception (e.g. apply it) and it’s not more than use of a computer as a tool to perform the exception. A human is capable of performing all of the steps of collecting work logs including specific characteristics and features of the work, time, tasks, and users involved to create a record of the event. The assertion that a human cannot perform the individual steps is incorrect. Further, putting multiple steps together and applying a computer does not transform the process into a one which the human mind would not be capable of.
Also, the arguments are state that claims are performing steps which are not mental processes. This includes “automated morphological analysis” which is the study of words and their combinations to convey meaning. In this case it’s the analysis of the data, specifically the file name, the body, the title, and the like to output a feature word. This is not above the capability of the human mind and is simply executed with a generic computer. Regarding “temporal correlation across heterogeneous logs”, this does not appear in the claim nor is it supported in the specification. Regardless, the connection of more than one log based on a time correlation is no beyond mental processes and does not require a computer application to perform. Turning to the “multi-use association logic”, this is also simple application of a generic computer as a person would be able to determine where multiple users are working in common. Lastly, the “algorithmic phase boundary determination” is simply a point in time when the common task is finished as a boundary of the phase. This is simply the end of one or more tasks documented in a work log, where the task is complete. All of these steps, whether individual or in combination are not above mental processes and do not integrate the abstract idea to eligible subject matter.
The arguments move to Step 2A, Prong 2 where the Applicant argues that the incorporated features of claims 9-11, which includes presenting work logs, recite a visualization that transforms raw data into a structured computer generated representation. The Applicant states the technical problem is how to automatically reconstruct, segment, and visualize, multi-user, cross-application work histories from large volumes of heterogeneous, computer-generated work logs. Where this problem does not arise in non-computer contexts and cannot be solved without computer technology. The Applicant again points to “reviews logs with pen and paper” and the claims require “automated morphological analysis”, “temporal correlation across heterogeneous logs”, “multi-use association logic” and “algorithmic phase boundary determination” as meaningful limitations on improving computer processes. The Applicant further cites DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. in the claims being rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer systems.
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. The claims include the steps outlined in MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and MPEP 2106.05(d)II. iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);. The use of a computer to analyze the data and select a feature work from the data is simply use of computer as a tool to analyze the work logs. The Examiner has addressed the individual limitations already and how they are no more than human functions applied to a generic computer. The Examiner does not find this to be a technical problem rather a business problem with a solution where the technical aspect is use of a computer to perform the data analysis.
The Applicant concludes with Step 2B and argues that the Examiner has characterized the claims as collecting, analysis, and display (remarks pages 10-11. Applicant argues they scope is “Defining creation-period-specific work logs, determining acquisition ranges using morphological analysis of data features, associating logs with multiple users involved in data creation, and algorithmically determining phase boundaries based on temporal gaps or common work completion and presenting the results using application identifying images.” Applicant again cites Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., that the claims are directed to improvements that enable “structured reconstruction of collaborative workflows: and “efficient visualization of complex work histories that could not meaningfully be processed or understood using conventional log displays”.
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.
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