ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after non-final rejection received on July 30, 2025. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims foreign priority to 2021-187814 filed on November 18, 2021.
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 amendments to claims 1, 2, and 4-9 in the response filed on July 30, 2025. No claims are canceled at this time.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 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 supporting construction of a service white is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent device Claim 8 and product Claim 9. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
acquiring, by at least one processor, resource information representing information related to the plurality of resources to be used in the service;
examining, by the at least one processor, feasibility of the service using the resource information of each of the plurality of resources to be used in the service; and
wherein the examining the feasibility of the service comprises actually controlling, by the at least one processor, the plurality of resources to be used for the service by combining operation of the plurality of resources and simulating operation corresponding to content of the service;
registering, with a storage, by the at least one processor, the service so as to allow the plurality of resources to be used in the service, which has been determined to be feasible by the examining, to be provided in combination with each other, and
controlling, by at least one processor, implementation of each of the plurality of resources to be used in the service by allowing a first one of the plurality of resources provided by a first one of the specific business operators to be usable by a second one of the specific business operators.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Acquiring information on resources, examining feasibility of combined services, registering allowing resource to be used, and controlling resources to be used in the service recites a commercial interaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The device comprising one memory and one processor in Claim 8 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions in Claim 9 appears to be just software. Claims 8 and 9 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. Acquiring information on resources, examining feasibility of combined services recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “at least one processor” and “storage” language, the claim limitations encompass collecting data regarding a service and making a determination if the services can be combined. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer hardware does not take the limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The device comprising one memory and one processor in Claim 8 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions in Claim 9 appears to be just software. Claims 8 and 9 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 least one processor and storage (Claim 1) a processor and a memory (claim 8) and/or non-transitory computer-readable medium (Claim 9). 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, 8, and 9 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. [0050] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [Note that the program may be supplied to a computer by being stored on a transitory computer-readable medium of any type.] 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, 8 and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-7 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity 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. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-7 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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 states “examining the feasibility of the service comprising actually controlling, by at least one processor, the plurality or resources to be used for the service by combining operation of the plurality or resources and simulating operation corresponding to content of the service.” The Office does not find how the resource is “actually controlled” based on the disclosure. The specification designation of actual control seems to be with respect to the simulation to determine feasibility. There is a lack of any signal or instruction which would designate control of the resource or the combination of services provided.
Additionally, claim 1 states “registering, with a storage, by the at least one processor.” The Office does not understand what is meant by the phrase “a storage”. When looking to the specification there are references to a storage unit, storage device, and a storage medium. The Office is unsure which one the Applicant is referring to.
Response to Arguments
The remarks begin on page 8 of the response on July 30, 2025 with the claims status and the substance of the interview held on July 7, 2025.
With respect to the arguments under 35 U.S.C § 101 the Applicants traverse the rejection (remarks page 8) and state that the claims have been amended to incorporate additional features.
The Examiner does not agree. Upon review of the amendments and consideration of the added limitations the Examiner does not find the claims to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101. The controlling is not positively recited and appears to be a step in the simulation of the operation corresponding to service content. There is no actual details of what constitutes the claim for actual control of the resources. Additionally, the claim recites controlling implementation by allowing one resource provided by a business operator to by usable by another business operator. The language is silent as to control aspects which allow the implementation. The broadest reasonable interpretation could simply be a service contract agreement for one business to use another businesses resource.
In summary, the amendments and corresponding arguments are not persuasive and the claims reaming rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101.
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 and email dylan.white@uspto.gov. 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 September 23, 2025