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 .
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 05/22/2026. In the current amendments, claims 1-11 are amended. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined.
In response to amendments and remarks filed on 05/22/2026, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections made in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 4, “and controls the modulation unit” should read “and control the modulation unit”
In claim 6, lines 2-3, “wherein the image processing circuit is configured to: accumulates the image data” should read “wherein the image processing circuit is configured to: accumulate the image data”
Dependent claims 3-6, 8, and 9 are objected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on objected claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 11 recites the new limitation “A non-transitory computer readable medium”, which is not disclosed in the original specification and is therefore considered new matter. The descriptions in the specification describe a “non-transitory or transitory recording medium which stores various programs and data” in paragraph [0026], but are silent with respect to a “computer readable medium”. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description. See MPEP 608.04(a): “Matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that is added after the application filing is usually new matter. … If the new matter has been entered into the claims or affects the scope of the claims, the claims affected should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, on the ground that it recites elements without support in the original disclosure. See Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 559, 31 USPQ2d 1855, 1857 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(A written-description question often arises when an applicant, after filing a patent application, subsequently adds "new matter" not present in the original application.); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the element” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the element” has been interpreted as “an element”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same coordinate space” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the same coordinate space” has been interpreted as “a same coordinate space”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the modulation unit” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the modulation unit” has been interpreted as “a modulation unit”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the accumulation unit” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the accumulation unit” has been interpreted as “an accumulation unit”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the evaluation unit” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the evaluation unit” has been interpreted as “an evaluation unit”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the evaluation unit” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the evaluation unit” has been interpreted as “an evaluation unit”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the element” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the element” has been interpreted as “an element”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the same coordinate space” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the same coordinate space” has been interpreted as “a same coordinate space”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the same coordinate space” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the same coordinate space” has been interpreted as “a same coordinate space”.
Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“when the element which is selected from an element group is acquired, plan a modulation function of modulating a value of a variable which is contained in the acquired element on the basis of an action history which is a history of the acquired element”
“modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target on the basis of the modulation function”
“generate image data which gives a point of coordinates which are values of a modulation result and the objective variable to a coordinate space which is defined by a first axis which corresponds to a result of the modulation and a second axis which corresponds to the objective variable per the analysis target”
“upon generating the image data, newly select the element from the element group based on the image data and update the action history”
“plan the modulation function based on the updated action history”
“modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target based on the modulation function”
“repeatedly generate the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is repeatedly generated”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass when a selected element is acquired, planning a modulation function for modulating the value of the variable in the acquired element based on an action history of the acquired element (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can plan a modulation function for modulating the value of the variable in the acquired element based on the action history of the element); using the modulation function to modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target (corresponds to mathematical calculations); generating image data that give a point of coordinates that are values of the modulation result and the objective variable to a coordinate space defined by first and second axes corresponding to the modulation result and the objective variable respectively (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate image data giving point of coordinates to a coordinate space defined by first and second axes corresponding to the modulation result and the objective variable respectively, the point of coordinates being values of the modulation result and the objective variable); selecting a new elements from the element group based on the image data and updating the action history upon generating the image data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, upon generating the image data, use the image data to select a new element from the element group and update the action history); planning the modulation function based on the updated action history (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can plan the modulation function based on the updated action history); using the modulation function to modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and repeatedly generating the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is generated (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, every time the modulation result is generated, repeatedly generate image data defined by the same coordinate space).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“a storage device”
“a processor”
“a memory”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“stores an analysis target data group which has values of respective variables in a variable group and a value of an objective variable per analysis target and an element group that the variable group and each of one or more modulation method(s) for modulating the variable(s) are set as elements”
As drafted, is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“selecting the element from the element group on the basis of the action history”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass selecting an element from the element group based on the action history (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on the action history, select the element from the element group).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“an image processing circuit configured to generate a control signal … and controls the modulation unit on the basis of the control signal”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic storage device, processor, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein when the image data is generated … selects the element from the element group”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass once the image data is generated, selecting the element from the element group (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can select the element from the element group once the image data is generated).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the image processing circuit”
“the image processing circuit … newly generates the control signal”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 2 of a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation of claim 2 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“defines the image data as a first state and defines the element group as a first action”
“inputs the image data into a first action value function which outputs a value of the first action in the first state on the basis of a first learning parameter”
“selects a specific element which corresponds to a specific value in element-based values which are output from the first action value function from the element group”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass defining the image data as a first state and the element group as a first action (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can define the image data as a first state and the element group as a first action); inputting the image data into a first action value function that outputs a value of the first action in the first state based on a first learning parameter (corresponds to mathematical calculation); and selecting a specific element corresponding to a specific value in the element-based values output from the first action value function from the element group (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can select a specific element corresponding to a specific value in the element-based values output from the first action value function from the element group).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the image processing circuit”
“the image processing circuit … newly generates the control signal which contains the selected specific element and thereby controls the modulation unit”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 3 of a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation of claim 3 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the specific value is a value which indicates a maximum value in the element-based values”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 4 of selecting a specific element corresponding to a specific value. The limitation of claim 5 further limits the limitation of claim 4 by further defining what the specific value comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses selecting a specific element corresponding to a specific value in the element-based values output from the first action value function from the element group, the specific value indicating a maximum value in the element-based values (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can select a specific element corresponding to a specific value indicating a maximum value in the element-based values output from the first action value function from the element group).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 4 of a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation of claim 4 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“accumulates the image data”
“evaluate the modulation function on the basis of the modulation result and the value of the objective variable”
“select a combination of time-series first image data and second image data which are accumulated from the accumulation unit”
“define the image data as a second state and define the element group as a second action”
“input the second image data into a second action value function for outputting a value of the second action in the second state on the basis of a second learning parameter”
“add a result of evaluation of the modulation function by the evaluation unit to a second output result from the second action value function as a reward and thereby calculates a value of the first action as a teacher signal”
“update the second learning parameter on the basis of the teacher signal and a first output result which is output in a case where the first image data is input into the second action value function”
“update the first learning parameter by the updated second learning parameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass accumulating image data from the generation unit (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can accumulate image data); evaluating the modulation function based on the modulation result and the value of the objective variable (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the modulation result and the value of the objective variable to evaluate the modulation function): selecting a combination of time-series first image data and second image data accumulated by the accumulation unit (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can select a combination of accumulated time-series first image data and second image data); defining image data as a second state and the element group as a second action (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can define the image data as a second state and the element group as a second action); inputting the second image data into a second action value function which outputs a value of the second action in the second state based on a second learning parameter (corresponds to mathematical calculations); adding a result of evaluation of the modulation function to a second output result from the second action value function as a reward and thereby calculating a value of the first action as a teacher signal (corresponds to mathematical calculation); updating the second learning parameter based on the teacher signal and a first output result that is output when the first image data is input to the second action value function (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can update the second learning parameter based on the teacher signal and a first output result from inputting the first image data into the second action value function); and updates the first learning parameter based on the updated second learning parameter (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the updated second learning parameter to update the first learning parameter).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“the image processing circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 4 of a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation of claim 4 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“evaluate the modulation function on the basis of the values of the modulation result and the objective variable”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass evaluating the modulation function based on the modulation result and the value of the objective variable (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the modulation result and the value of the objective variable to evaluate the modulation function).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“an image processing circuit”
“a display”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“displays the image data in a case where a result of evaluation of the modulation function by the evaluation unit is more than a target value”
As drafted, is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic storage device, processor, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, memory, image processing circuit, and display for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. displaying/transmitting data and storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” and “displays …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“generates a regression model for regressing a first-axis coordinate value which corresponds to the modulation result with the objective variable and outputs an accuracy of the regression model as a result of evaluation of the modulation function”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating a regression model for regressing a first-axis coordinate value correspond to the modulation result with the objective variable an outputs an accuracy of the regression model as a result of the evaluation of the modulation function (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a regression model for regressing the first-axis coordinate value corresponding to the modulation result with the objective variable and outputting the accuracy as a result of the evaluation of the modulation function).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“the image processing circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“wherein the objective variable is a quantitative variable”
As drafted, is an additional element that is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 6 of storing an analysis target data group which has values of respective variables in a variable group and a value of an objective variable per analysis target. The limitation of claim 8 further limits the limitation of claim 6 by further defining what the objective variable comprises. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 6 of a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation of claim 6 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“generates an identification model which identifies a first-axis coordinate value which corresponds to the modulation result with the objective variable and outputs an accuracy of the identification model as a result of evaluation of the modulation function”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating an identification model for identifying a first-axis coordinate value correspond to the modulation result with the objective variable an outputs an accuracy of the identification model as a result of the evaluation of the modulation function (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate an identification model for identifying the first-axis coordinate value corresponding to the modulation result with the objective variable and outputting the accuracy as a result of the evaluation of the modulation function).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“the image processing circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“wherein the objective variable is information for classification of the analysis target data group”
As drafted, is an additional element that is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 6 of storing an analysis target data group which has values of respective variables in a variable group and a value of an objective variable per analysis target. The limitation of claim 9 further limits the limitation of claim 6 by further defining what the objective variable comprises. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 6 of a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation of claim 6 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, memory, and image processing circuit for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“a modulation process of, when the element which is selected from an element group is acquired, planning a modulation function for modulating a value of a variable which is contained in the acquired element on the basis of an action history which is a history of the acquired element”
“modulating the value of the variable per the analysis target on the basis of the modulation function”
“a generation process of generating image data which gives a point of coordinates which are values of a modulation result and the objective variable to a coordinate space which is defined by a first axis which corresponds to a result of modulation by the modulation process and a second axis which corresponds to the objective variable, per the analysis target”
“upon generating the image data, newly selecting the element from the element group based on the image data and update the action history”
“planning the modulation function based on the updated action history”
“modulating the value of the variable per the analysis target based on the modulation function”
“repeatedly generating the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is repeatedly generated”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass when a selected element is acquired, planning a modulation function for modulating the value of the variable in the acquired element based on an action history of the acquired element (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can plan a modulation function for modulating the value of the variable in the acquired element based on the action history of the element); using the modulation function to modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target (corresponds to mathematical calculations); generating image data that give a point of coordinates that are values of the modulation result and the objective variable to a coordinate space defined by first and second axes corresponding to the modulation result and the objective variable respectively (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate image data giving point of coordinates to a coordinate space defined by first and second axes corresponding to the modulation result and the objective variable respectively, the point of coordinates being values of the modulation result and the objective variable); selecting a new elements from the element group based on the image data and updating the action history upon generating the image data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, upon generating the image data, use the image data to select a new element from the element group and update the action history); planning the modulation function based on the updated action history (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can plan the modulation function based on the updated action history); using the modulation function to modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and repeatedly generating the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is generated (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, every time the modulation result is generated, repeatedly generate image data defined by the same coordinate space).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“a data processing apparatus which has a processor which executes a program and a storage device which stores the program”
“the processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“wherein the data processing apparatus is accessible to an analysis target data group which has values of respective variables in a variable group and a value of an objective variable per analysis target and to an element group which defines the variable group and each of one or more modulation method(s) for modulating the variable(s) as elements”
As drafted, is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic apparatus, processor, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. accessing/retrieving data). Furthermore, the “… is accessible …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“a modulation process of, when an element which is selected from the element group is acquired, planning a modulation function for modulating a value of a variable which is contained in the acquired element on the basis of an action history which is a history of the acquired element”
“modulating the value of the variable per the analysis target on the basis of the modulation function”
“a generation process of generating image data which gives a point of coordinates which are values of a modulation result and the objective variable to a coordinate space which is defined by a first axis which corresponds to a result of modulation by the modulation process and a second axis which corresponds to the objective variable, per the analysis target”
“upon generating the image data, newly selecting the element from the element group based on the image data and update the action history”
“planning the modulation function based on the updated action history”
“modulating the value of the variable per the analysis target based on the modulation function”
“repeatedly generating the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is repeatedly generated”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass when a selected element is acquired, planning a modulation function for modulating the value of the variable in the acquired element based on an action history of the acquired element (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can plan a modulation function for modulating the value of the variable in the acquired element based on the action history of the element); using the modulation function to modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target (corresponds to mathematical calculations); generating image data that give a point of coordinates that are values of the modulation result and the objective variable to a coordinate space defined by first and second axes corresponding to the modulation result and the objective variable respectively (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate image data giving point of coordinates to a coordinate space defined by first and second axes corresponding to the modulation result and the objective variable respectively, the point of coordinates being values of the modulation result and the objective variable); selecting a new elements from the element group based on the image data and updating the action history upon generating the image data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, upon generating the image data, use the image data to select a new element from the element group and update the action history); planning the modulation function based on the updated action history (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can plan the modulation function based on the updated action history); using the modulation function to modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and repeatedly generating the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is generated (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, every time the modulation result is generated, repeatedly generate image data defined by the same coordinate space).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“a computer readable medium storing a data processing program”
“a processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“a processor which is accessible to an analysis target data group which has values of respective variables in a variable group and a value of an objective variable per analysis target and to an element group which defines the variable group and each of one or more modulation method(s) of modulating the variable(s) as elements”
As drafted, is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer readable medium storing program instructions and a processor for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. accessing/retrieving data). Furthermore, the “… is accessible …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claim 11 is made in view of the claim amendments filed 05/22/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation and lack of corresponding written description have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendments and remarks have not addressed all of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) antecedent basis rejections to the claims. Therefore, the antecedent basis rejections are maintained for the unaddressed rejections. Furthermore, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the claim amendments filed 05/22/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections to claims 1-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “The Examiner has rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. … Applicant respectfully submits that at least Applicant's independent claims 1, 10 and 11, as presented herein, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the following reasons.
When considering claim 1 as a whole, as required, the claim sets forth an improvement to analytical accuracy in the manner set forth in claim 1 and as described in the specification. …
The improvement is a technical solution to a technical problem, as explained in the specification. For example,
[t]o obtain an optimum numerical formula which expresses an objective variable by searching a numerical formula space which consists of a variable group and an arithmetic operation group which are prescribed is called symbolic regression. A model which expresses the objective variable can be obtained in an interpretable form which is called a numerical formula which consists of a prescribed arithmetic operation of a finite length by the symbolic regression.
Para. [0003] of the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application (US 2023/0169400). "The symbolic regression by machine learning automatizes preparation of numerical formula models in such fields and contributes to advancement of learning." Para. [0005].
The presently claimed invention provides technical improvements over conventional techniques. For example, Patent Literature 1 describes techniques of "obtaining an optimum numerical formula in symbolic regression by using an evolutionary algorithm, or an annealing method, or Tabu search." Para. [0009]. However, these techniques have lower accuracy than using deep learning, in general, in a regression problem. Id. "Accordingly, it is thought that the possibility that the optimum numerical formula can be obtained is lower than that of deep learning." Id.
Although the technique in Patent Literature 2 performs symbolic regression which uses reinforcement learning which is based on a deep learning model, there are limitations in form and length of the numerical formula. See para. [0010]. Accordingly, the presently claimed invention provides improvements to analytical accuracy. See paras. [0013] and [0038]. That is, the presently claimed invention sets forth a computer-implemented specific technical processes under technically relevant conditions.
The improvement is also recited in the claims. For example, claim 1 recites "upon generating the image data, newly select the element from the element group based on the image data and update the action history, plan the modulation function based on the updated action history, and modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target based on the modulation function, and repeatedly generate the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is repeatedly generated." …
Even further, the improvement set forth in claim 1 is not to the alleged abstract idea itself. Additionally, this is not a case like Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int', 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) where the computer is merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
Thus, Applicant's claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea demonstrated by a particular improvement to analytical accuracy. Therefore, under the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.” (Remarks Pages 11-14).
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has made general assertions that claim 1 recites claim elements that are not directed to an abstract idea and that even if the claim elements are directed to an abstract idea, the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite elements that cannot reasonably be characterized as covering mental processes or reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. Regarding the “upon generating the image data, newly select the element from the element group based on the image data and update the action history, plan the modulation function based on the updated action history, and modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target based on the modulation function, and repeatedly generate the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is repeatedly generated” limitations of claim 1, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, are considered abstract ideas that encompass selecting a new elements from the element group based on the image data and updating the action history upon generating the image data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, upon generating the image data, use the image data to select a new element from the element group and update the action history); planning the modulation function based on the updated action history (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can plan the modulation function based on the updated action history); using the modulation function to modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and repeatedly generating the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is generated (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, every time the modulation result is generated, repeatedly generate image data defined by the same coordinate space). Furthermore, since the “select …”, “plan …”, “modulate …”, and “repeatedly generate …” are directed to a judicial exception, they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Additionally, claim 1 recites encompass when a selected element is acquired, planning a modulation function for modulating the value of the variable in the acquired element based on an action history of the acquired element (corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper); using the modulation function to modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and generating image data that give a point of coordinates that are values of the modulation result and the objective variable to a coordinate space defined by first and second axes corresponding to the modulation result and the objective variable respectively (corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper). Since these limitations are directed to a judicial exception, they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Thus, it is the additional elements that are analyzed to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, not the judicial exception itself. The additional elements of claim 1 of “a storage device”, “a processor”, and “a memory”, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, are additional elements that are high level recitations of applying a generic computer and generic computer components to implement the abstract ideas such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. … Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Moreover, the recitation of “stores an analysis target data group which has values of respective variables in a variable group and a value of an objective variable per analysis target and an element group that the variable group and each of one or more modulation method(s) for modulating the variable(s) are set as elements”, as drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements correspond to mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Furthermore, 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic storage device, processor, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “stores …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In other words, the limitations of “upon generating the image data, newly select the element from the element group based on the image data and update the action history, plan the modulation function based on the updated action history, and modulate the value of the variable per the analysis target based on the modulation function, and repeatedly generate the image data defined by the same coordinate space every time the modulation result is repeatedly generated” are abstract ideas that are directed to a judicial exception, so they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. Additionally, the limitation of “stores …” is an additional element corresponding to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, the other additional elements recited in claim 1 are directed to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional element(s) that can provide any alleged solution, improvement, or inventive concept. As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor do the claims contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant relies on the arguments above regarding independent claims 10 and 11 and dependent claims 2-9 therefore the response above is applicable to those claims.
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 BRIAN J HALES whose telephone number is (571)272-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/BRIAN J HALES/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights