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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 4/28/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 13-14,17-19, and 22-23 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-2, 4-8, 13-14, 17-19, and 22-23 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3, 9-12, 15-16, and 20-21 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 12-13, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Collecting data is a human function for example a user can obtain information from libraries from other users etc., just as displaying data is (for example providing something on a white board or piece of paper). It is noted that the argued limitations of this data collection being done automatically or using machine learning for example by a computer, and the display is instead of being for example a piece of paper being done on the SNS (social network service) are additionally elements that are addressed under the practical application and significantly more step.
On remarks page 13, Applicant argues that the claims improve computer functionality. Specifically here Applicant argues that the claims simplify and visualize trends that were difficult to monitor due to diversity in languages and formats across countries through technical means.
However, Applicant’s recitation of translating data (see claim 2) is at such a high level of abstraction it merely recites a limitation a human or humans could perform specifically translating a language to another language based on a translating condition. Or simply for example translating something from English to Spanish because it is desired (translation condition). The fact that this is done by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 14-15, Applicant argues that the claims solve a specific technical problem. Again here Applicant argues “rule information was disseminated in various languages and formats, globally, making monitoring and organization extremely difficult”.
However, Applicant’s recitation of translating data (see claim 2) is at such a high level of abstraction it merely recites a limitation a human or humans could perform specifically translating a language to another language based on a translating condition. Or simply for example translating something from English to Spanish because it is desired (translation condition). The fact that this is done by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Further SNS has been addressed above in section 3
Though not claimed as argued by Applicant human or humans could display information chronologically. The additional element that this is done on a computer (an interactive screen) merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed with respect to the claim language in the 101 rejection below.
On Remarks pages 15-17, Applicant argues inventive concept. The Examiner maintains the response with respect to converting information between different languages and SNS as found above in 3-4. Further as to Applicant’s arguments, the claims are recited at such a high level (and as shown in the 101 rejection below) that they recite limitations a human or humans could perform like collecting data, removing duplicates, categorizing it into categories, translate information from one language to another, storing it according to rules, aggregating the data to provide concise and summary information, and storing that aggregated information, displaying it, and collecting responses to the displayed data (it is note that the different independent claims have different claim scope and most of the independent claims do not require all the above limitations). The additional elements that recite these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans (given the broad recitation in the claim) are instead being performed by like a computer, server, processor, etc. as detailed in the 101 rejection below are recited at such a high level of generally that they merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, which has been previously established as not a practical application or significantly more and not a technical improvement.
Based on Applicant’s amendments and response (see Remarks pages 17-18) the previous 112 second/b rejections have been withdrawn.
On Remarks pages 18-22, Applicant argues Applicant’s amendments with respect to deduplication. Argument is moot in view of the newly cited Thomson reference (US 5,634,051) that teaches removing duplicates. 8. On Remarks pages 23-25, Applicant argues claim 5 in view of the new amendments. The argument is moot in view of the citation now to Meyer et al. reference (US 2009/0150827) instead of Bradic found in the office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 13-14, 17-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 17-19, and 22-23 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claim 6 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor. Claims 7-8 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor. Claim 13-14 recite an article of manufacture as the claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of selecting an issue, collecting information related to that specific issue, aggregating that collected information to determine similarity between the collected information and the selected issue, displaying results including indicators of similarity, and tracking user engagement with the displayed information.
The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that a human or humans could reasonably and practically perform, accordingly the claims recite a mental process.
Further the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions which is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner has highlighted and underlined by the additional elements beyond the abstract idea in the claims below for distinction.
Claim 1: A rule watch method executed by at least one computer, including a processor and a memory in a rule watch system, the rule watch method comprising:
Collecting, by the processor of the at least one computer, rule information including information relating to rule creation of at least one of an environmental issue, a human rights issue, a legal regulation, and standardization, published via the Internet on a basis of a collecting condition including a collecting source registered in advance;
Checking by the processor of the at least one computer, the collected rule information whether information of which title, date of publication, and organization name entirely match with the title, the date of publication, and the organization name is present in the memory of at least one computer, and storing the collected rule information when the title, the date of publication, and the organization name are not saved in the memory of the at least one computer;
Storing, by the processor of the at least one computer, the collected rule information having a keyword of a predetermined registered sorting table that is translated into the memory of the at least one computer;
Forming, by the processor of the at least one computer, concise information in which the predetermined keyword is extracted from the sorted rule information and a summary is created from the sorted rule information;
And storing, by the processor of the at least one computer, the concise information in the memory of the at least one computer
Claim 2: The rule watch method according to claim 1, further comprising, before the step of sorting the collected rule information: translating, by the processor of the at least one computer, when the collected rule information includes a language different from a predetermined language to which translation is to be made, the language to the predetermined language on a basis of a translating condition;
Claim 4: The rule watch method according claim1, further comprising of measuring, by the processor of the at least one computer, an attention degree of corresponding rule information on a basis of at least one of a number of comments, a number of reactions, a number of clicks of links for accessing the corresponding rule information, and a number by which collapsed display is unfolded by the user corresponding to the concise information that is posted; and displaying the attention degree on a terminal of the user.
Claim 5: The rule watch method according claim1, further comprising a step of determining, by the processor of the at least one computer, a progress degree of the rule creation on a basis of organization information including an organization serving as the collecting source of the rule information, wherein the progress degree of the rule creation is classified, in ascending order, into a stage of social issue, a stage of bill crafting institution, a stage of assembly, a stage of public administration, and a stage of court, with an organization name defined for each corresponding stage
Claim 6: A rule watch system, comprising: a crawler server including a processor and a memory configured to:
collect rule information including information relating to rule creation of at least one of an environmental issue, a human rights issue, a legal regulation, and standardization, published via the Internet on a basis of a collecting condition including a collecting source registered in advance;
and translate, when the collected rule information is different from a language to which translation is to be made, the collected rule information to a predetermined language to which translation is to be made on a basis of a translating condition;
a server including a processor and a memory configured to:
checking the collected rule information whether information of which title, date of publication, and organization name entirely match with the title, the date of publication, and the organization name is present in the memory of the server, and storing the collected rule information when the title, the date of publication and the organization name are not saved in the memory of the server;
sort the collected rule having a keyword of a predetermined registered storing table that is translated into the memory of the server;
form concise information in which the predetermined keyword is extracted from the sorted rule information and a summary is created from the stored rule information;
store the concise information in the memory of the server;
and measure a progress degree of the rule creation on a basis of organization information including an organization serving as the collecting source of the rule information wherein the progress degree of the rule creation is classified, in ascending order, into a stage of social issue, a stage of bill crafting institution, a stage of assembly, a stage of public administration, and a stage of court, with an organization name defined for each corresponding stage; and
; and an SNS server including a processor and a memory that manages an SNS site for posting a current stage of the rule creation together with the concise information as a first post and configured to: create a thread as a first post; and measure an attention degree of corresponding rule information on a basis of at least one of a number of comments, a number of reactions, a number of clicks of links for accessing the corresponding rule information, and a number by which collapsed display is unfolded by a user corresponding to the concise information that is posted.
Claim 7: A server comprising a processor and a memory, and wherein the processor
collects sort rule information on a basis of a collecting condition including a collecting source registered in advance and which includes information relating to rule creation of at least one of an environmental issue, a human rights issue, a legal regulation, and standardization, published via the Internet, into rule information relating to a predetermined category on a basis of a sorting condition;
checks the collected rule information whether information of which title, date of publication, and organization name entirely match with the title, the date of publication, and the organization name is present in the memory of the server, and storing the collected rule information when the title, the date of publication, and the organization name are not saved in the memory of the server;
sorts the collected information having a keyword of a predetermined registered sorting table that is translated into the memory;
forms concise information in which the predetermined keyword is extracted from the sorted rule information and a summary is created from the stored rule information; and
store the concise information in the memory
Claim 8: The server according to claim 7, wherein the processor determines degree of the rule creation on a basis of organization information including an organization serving as the collecting source of the rule information wherein the progress degree of the rule creation is classified, in ascending order, into a stage of social issue, a stage of bill crafting institution, a stage of assembly, a stage of public administration, and a stage of court, with an organization name defined for each corresponding stage.
Claim 13: A non-transitory computer readable medium including a server program, the server program causing a computer to:
Collect sort rule information, on a basis of a collecting condition including a collecting source registered in advance and which includes information relating to rule creation of at least one of an environmental issue, a human rights issue, a legal regulation, and standardization, published via the Internet, into rule information relating to a predetermined category on a basis of a sorting condition;
Check the collected rule information whether information of which title, date of publication, and organization name entirely match with the title, the date of publication, and the organization name is present in the memory of the server, and storing the collected rule information when the title, the date of publication, and the organization name are not saved in a memory;
Sort the collected rule information having a keyword of a predetermined registered sorting table that is translated into the memory; form concise information in which the predetermined keyword is extracted from the sorted rule information and a summary is created from the sorted rule information; and
Store the concise information in the memory.
Claim 14: The
Claim 17: The rule watch method according to claim 1, further comprising: collecting, by the processor of the at least one computer, technical information relating to practical realization of technology including technological investment or a press release relating to science and technology and academic information relating to a progress of technology including a paper or a patent literature relating to science and technology from the Internet on a basis of a collecting condition registered in advance including a collecting source of the technical information and the academic information; acquiring, by the processor of the at least one computer, a co-occurrence word group from each of the rule information and the collected technical information and academic technical information; and acquiring, by the processor of the at least one computer, a similarity degree among information in the rule information, the technical information, and the academic information on a basis of a similarity degree of the each co-occurrence word group.
Claim 18: The rule watch method according to claim 17, further comprising a displaying a magnitude of the similarity degree on a display unit of a user terminal in accordance with a thickness or a length of a line that connects similar display elements out of display elements indicating the rule information, the technical information, and the academic information.
Claim 19: The rule watch method according to claim 17, further comprising: a sorting, by the processor of at least one computer, the collected rule information, technical information, and academic information into predetermined categories on a basis of a sorting condition; and displaying a display element indicating the rule information, the technical information, or the academic information on a graph including an axis indicating a corresponding country or the category and a time axis.
Claim 22: The rule watch method according to claim 18, further comprising: acquiring, by the processor of the at least one computer, person or organization information and an importance degree of the person or organization information from the co-occurrence word group;
and displaying a display element indicating the person or organization information and a display element indicating the corresponding rule information, technical information, and academic information on the display unit by connecting the display element indicating the person or organization information and the display element indicating the corresponding rule information, technical information, and academic information to each other by a link display element.
Claim 23: The rule watch method according to claim 18, further comprising: selecting, by the processor of the at least one computer, specific rule information out of the rule information; and displaying a display element indicating the technical information or the academic information similar to the specific rule information and a display element indicating the technical information or the academic information similar to that technical information or academic information similar to the specific rule information on the display unit.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite determining the information to collect, collecting the information from various sources, removing duplicate copies according to rules to only save one copy, sorting information related to keywords (subjects), combining the information into a concise format according to keywords or subjects, and storing the sorted and combined data. These are all limitations a human operator or operators could perform. The fact that these limitations a human or humans could perform are instead recited at the high level of abstraction of being performed by “computers” (including processors) and the information is published “via the Internet”, merely result in recitation of “apply it.”
This is the case as the claims only recite the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the recitation of the claim limitations are claimed at such a high level of abstraction, the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Further the claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform the additional elements claimed at such a high level of abstraction of being performed by “computers” (including processors) and the information is published “via the Internet” merely invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by computers like the limitations above of being performed by ““computers” (including processors) and the information is published “via the Internet” generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite collecting information, translating it, storing it, and using it to later form information. These are all limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no specific additional elements in claim 2 recited here other than those addressed above in claim 1 with respect to computers (including processors).
As per claim 4, the claims recite measuring a user’s attention or engagement or response to displayed content and displaying engagement or attention on a display. Which again is a limitation that could be performed by a human or humans. Computers (including processors) have been previously addressed above in claim 1 and the results of the analysis are the same in this claim.
The additional elements of specific type of engagement or attention like “clicks of links” or “collapsed display is unfolded by the user corresponding to the concise information that is posted” or that the information is displayed on a user “terminal” merely results in recitation of “apply it.” The claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform the additional elements of specific type of engagement or attention like “clicks of links” or “collapsed display is unfolded by the user corresponding to the concise information that is posted” or that the information is displayed on a user “terminal” merely invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here the claims only recite the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant is not claiming an improvement to how clicks are being collected or improvement to collection information regarding a collapsed display collection method rather applicant is merely using the outcome of this collection to perform the above abstract idea.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by computers like the limitations of specific type of engagement or attention like “clicks of links” or “collapsed display is unfolded by the user corresponding to the concise information that is posted” or that the information is displayed on a user “terminal”, generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers.
As per claim 5, the claims recite determining a progress degree based on the collected information and sorting in ascending order information into certain defined categories like stage of bill, crafting institution, a stage of assembly, etc. (all alternatives claimed in 5). This is a limitation that could be performed by a human or humans, as it is recited at such a high level of abstraction as a mere calculation or observation or judgement that could be performed by the user. There are no additional elements beyond computers (including processors) which result in the same analysis as found above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite determining the information to collect, collecting the information from various sources, translating information from foreign languages, removing duplicate copies according to rules to only save one copy, sorting information related to keywords (subjects), storing aggregated or concise information, categorizing information from content like social issues, bill crafting, stage of assembly, etc (see all alternatives in claim 6) in ascending order, combining the information into a concise format, providing the information for review or consumption by displaying it, and tracking user engagement or response to the displayed information. These are all limitations a human operator or operators could perform. The fact that these limitations a human or humans could perform are instead recited at the high level of abstraction of being performed by “a crawler server”, “via the Internet”, “a server”, “a processor”, “a SNS server”, “clicks of links”, and “collapsed display is unfolded by the user corresponding to the concise information that is posted”, merely result in recitation of “apply it.”
This is the case as the claims only recite the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the recitation of the claim limitations are claimed at such a high level of abstraction, the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Specifically here Applicant is not claiming an improvement to how clicks are being collected, improvement to collection information regarding a collapsed display collection, an improvement to machine translation of foreign languages, or an improvement to data collection of a crawler for example. Rather instead applicant is merely using the outcome of this collection to perform the above abstract idea.
Further the claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform the additional elements claimed at such a high level of abstraction of being performed by “a crawler server”, “via the Internet”, “a server”, “a processor”, “a SNS server”, “clicks of links”, and “collapsed display is unfolded by the user corresponding to the concise information that is posted”, merely invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by computers like the limitations above of being performed by ““a crawler server”, “via the Internet”, “a server”, “a processor”, “a SNS server”, “clicks of links”, and “collapsed display is unfolded by the user corresponding to the concise information that is posted”, generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers or social networking.
As per claim 7, the claims recite determining the information to collect, collecting the information from various sources, combining the information into a concise format, removing duplicate copies according to rules to only save one copy, sorting information related to keywords (subjects), and saving information in storage or memory. These are all limitations a human operator or operators could perform. The fact that these limitations a human or humans could perform are instead recited at the high level of abstraction of being performed by “a server” or “processor” and the information is published “via the Internet” merely result in recitation of “apply it.” This is the case as the claims only recite the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the recitation of the claim limitations are claimed at such a high level of abstraction, the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Further the claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform the additional elements claimed at such a high level of abstraction of being performed by “a server” or “processor” and the information is published “via the Internet” merely invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by “a server” or “processor” and the information is published “via the Internet”, generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers.
As per claim 8, the claims recite determining a progress degree based on the collected information and sorting in ascending order information into certain defined categories like stage of bill, crafting institution, a stage of assembly, etc. (all alternatives claimed in 8). This is a limitation that could be performed by a human or humans, as it is recited at such a high level of abstraction as a mere calculation or observation or judgement that could be performed by the user. The claims recite no additional elements beyond those recited above in the independent claim 7, like those with respect to processor.
As per claim 13, the claims recite determining the information to collect, collecting the information from various sources, removing duplicate copies according to rules to only save one copy, sorting information related to keywords (subjects), combining the information into a concise format, and saving the determination information. These are all limitations a human operator or operators could perform. The fact that these limitations a human or humans could perform are instead recited at the high level of abstraction of being performed by stored software running on a computer “a non-transitory computer readable medium including a server program, the server program causing a computer to”, the information is published “via the Internet”, and by “a server”, by a “processor” merely result in recitation of “apply it.” This is the case as the claims only recite the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the recitation of the claim limitations are claimed at such a high level of abstraction, the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Further the claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform the additional elements claimed at such a high level of abstraction of being performed by stored software running on a computer “a non-transitory computer readable medium including a server program, the server program causing a computer to”, the information is published “via the Internet”, and by “a server”, by a “processor” merely invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by computers like the limitations above of being performed by stored software running on a computer “a non-transitory computer readable medium including a server program, the server program causing a computer to”, the information is published “via the Internet”, and by “a server”, by a “processor”, generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers.
As per claim 14, the claims recite determining a progress degree based on the collected information and sorting in ascending order information into certain defined categories like stage of bill, crafting institution, a stage of assembly, etc. (all alternatives claimed in 14). This is a limitation that could be performed by a human or humans, as it is recited at such a high level of abstraction as a mere calculation or observation or judgement that could be performed by the user. The claims recite no additional elements beyond those recited above in the independent claim 13.
As per claim 17, the claims recite collecting various types of documents that include technical and academic information, determining words that appear in each of the documents, and calculating a similarity degree based on that determination. This is a limitation that could be performed by a human or humans, as it is recited at such a high level of abstraction as a mere calculation or observation or judgement that could be performed by the user. The additional elements that this information is received “from the Internet results” and “by a processor of a computer” in mere instructions to apply it. This is the case as the claims only recite the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the recitation of the claim limitations are claimed at such a high level of abstraction, the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Here the claims recite the co-occurrence at such a high level of generality it really merely recites a function a human or humans could perform by comparing documents to determine common terms or phrases. Even if Applicant were to recite this is for example done by a computer applicant does not recite an improvement in determining a co occurrence word group from data gathered over the internet for example rather the claims are merely using the outcome of co occurrence word group determination to perform the abstract idea, therefore this results in mere “apply it”.
Further the claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform the additional elements claimed at such a high level of abstraction of being performed by “from the Internet” and by a processor of a computer, results merely in invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by computers like the limitations above of “from the Internet”, generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers.
As per claim 18, the claims displaying the magnitude of similarity through a thickness of a length of line on a display related to information. These are limitations a human or humans could perform to draw distinction or similarity between compare information like documents or notes. The fact that these limitations a human or humans could perform are instead recited at the high level of abstraction of displayed at a “user terminal” merely result in recitation of “apply it.” This is the case as the claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform. The additional elements claimed at such a high level of abstraction of being performed by “user terminal” website merely invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by computers like the limitations above of being performed by “user terminal”, generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers.
As per claim 19, the claim recite storing the collected information in categories based on a sorting condition, and displaying information related to the collected information in a graph which includes a category and a time axis. These are limitations that could be performed by a human or humans. The additional elements that this is done by a processor of a computer merely results in the same result of apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 17.
As per claim 22, the claim recites acquiring importance information and degree of importance from co-occurrence word group for a person or organization and displaying on a display a link or connection between the collected information and the importance information. This is a limitation that could be performed by a human or humans, as it is recited at such a high level of abstraction as a mere calculation or observation or judgement that could be performed by the user.
The additional element this being done by a (computer) including a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 18-19.
The additional elements that this information displayed is displayed on a “display unit” in mere instructions to apply it. This is the case as the claims only recite the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the recitation of the claim limitations are claimed at such a high level of abstraction, the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Here the claims recite the co-occurrence at such a high level of generality it really merely recites a function a human or humans could perform by comparing documents to determine common terms or phrases. Even if Applicant were to recite this is for example done by a computer applicant does not recite an improvement in determining a co occurrence word group from data gathered over the internet for example rather the claims are merely using the outcome of co occurrence word group determination to perform the abstract idea, therefore this results in mere “apply it”.
Further the claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform. The additional elements claimed at such a high level of abstraction of being displayed on the display unit merely invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by computers like the limitations above being displayed on a “display unit”, generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers.
As per claim 23, the claim recite selecting a rule and displaying similar technical or academic information according to that rule. This is a limitation that could be performed by a human or humans, as it is recited at such a high level of abstraction as merely selecting to find documents from July 2024 and going and finding documents related to July 2024 either academic or technical to display.
The additional element this being done by a (computer) including a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 18-19.
The additional elements that this information displayed on a “display unit” in mere instructions to apply it.
The claims as discussed above are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite limitations a human or human could perform. The additional elements claimed at such a high level of abstraction of providing information for display “on the display unit” results merely in invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead generically recited as being performed by computers like the limitations above being displayed on a “display unit”, generally merely link the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed under the practical application step above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
13. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 13-14, 17-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradic et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0055242) further in view of Meyer et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2009/0150827) further in view of Thomson (United States Patent Number: US 5,634,051)
As per claim 1, Bradic et al. teaches A rule watch method executed by at least one computer including a processor and a memory in a rule watch system, the rule watch method comprising: (see abstract and paragraphs 0015-0016, Examiner's note: software running on a computer to perform the functions (see paragraphs 0015-0016). Further abstract teaches that there are methods and systems).
collecting, by the processor of the at least one computer, rule information including information relating to rule creation of information a user is interested in published via the Internet on a basis of a collecting condition including a collecting source registered in advance; (see paragraphs 0025- 0026,0050, and 0054, Examiner's note: query with additional parameters to what information is returned and defines sets of sources to receive information from (see paragraphs 0025-0026 and 0050). Further teaches queries from specific domains like news (see paragraph 0054)).
sorting, by the processor of the at least one computer, the collected rule information having a keyword of a predetermined registered sorting table; (see paragraphs 0036-0039, 0050-0051, Figures 4c-4d and 6-8, Examiner’s note: teaches providing information according to keywords and teaches providing information related to the keywords into table format).
that is translated into the memory of the at least one computer(see abstract and paragraphs 0015-0016 and 0065, Examiner's note: software running on a computer to perform the functions).
forming, by the processor of the at least one computer, concise information in which the predetermined keyword is extracted from the sorted rule information and a summary is created from the sorted rule information; (see paragraphs 0050-0055, Figures 4c-4d and 6-8, Examiner’s note: teaches concise and summary information according to rules (see paragraphs 0050-0055 and Figures 4c-4d and 6-89).
and storing, by the processor of the at least one computer, the concise information in the memory of the at least one computer. (see paragraphs 0021-0024 and 0029, Examiner’s note: Further teaches storing the information in the system where the information may be stored in a database (See paragraphs 0021-0024 and 0029)).
While Bradic clearly teaches querying for various information on the internet,
Bradic does not expressly teach (1) a user's query can be of the topic of at least one of an environmental issue, a human rights issue, a legal regulation, and standardization. Further Bradic et al. does not expressly t