DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 05/13/2025, Applicant, on 07/07/2025, amended Claims 1, 6 and 14; and canceled Claims 4, 5 and 7. Claims 2, 3 and 8-13 are as originally presented.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14 are currently pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. The prior Claim Objections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
5. The prior 35 USC §112 rejection of Claims withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
6. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
7. The prior 35 USC §102 and USC §103 rejections of Claims withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of system (machine) or method (process), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 14 recites A policy decision support method .. based on a plurality of indices, the policy decision support method allowing: a generation process of expressing the plurality of indices as nodes by generating nodes corresponding to the indices and expressing, for every two indices among the plurality of indices, superiority or inferiority between the two indices as an edge connecting the two nodes to generate a graph modeling a relationship between the plurality of indices wherein the generation process includes generating edges indicating connection relationships between the nodes; and a calculation process of calculating an importance level of each of the plurality of indices based on the graph generated in the generation process; .. an acquisition process of acquiring, for each of the indices, a degree of improvement of the policy based on a result of a simulation of the policy using a plurality of parameters in a target area of the policy, wherein in the generation process, .. express each of the plurality of indices as nodes and expresses the degree of relative importance between the two indices based on the degrees of improvement of the two indices acquired in the acquisition process as an edge connecting the two nodes to generate an importance graph of the policy modeling a degree of relative importance between the two indices, and wherein in the calculation process, .. calculate the degree of importance of each of the plurality of indices as the importance level based on the importance graph; wherein in the acquisition process, .. acquire, for each of the indices, the result of a simulation using the plurality of parameters for each of the plurality of policies, and acquire, for each of the indices, a degree of improvement of each policy by normalizing a difference between a result of a simulation of a reference policy among the plurality of policies and a result of a simulation of another policy based on the difference and a direction in which the result is improved, wherein in the generation process, .. generate the importance graph for each of the policies, and wherein in the calculation process, .. calculate the degree of importance of each of the plurality of indices for each of the policies based on the importance graph; wherein in the generation process, .. perform normalization so that a sum of values indicating superiority or inferiority of a specific edge indicating a direction from each node of the graph to another node becomes 1, and wherein in the calculation process, .. calculate an eigenvector based on the graph as the importance level of each of the plurality of indices, which is an abstract idea of Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because expressing indices as nodes interconnected by edges defining a relative importance of the nodes is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. Claim 1 recites the same abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 14, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as a processor configured to execute a program and a storage device configured to store the program, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 14, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 2 of the Drawings and paragraphs 47, 172 and 173 of the published Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2, 3, 6 and 8-13 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in independent Claims from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2, 6 and 8-13 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claim 3 does not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because the Claim, including additional elements such as those listed above and a machine learning device, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, is not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the Claim does not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the Claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2, 6 and 8-13 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above and a machine learning device, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 2 of the Drawings and paragraphs 47, 172 and 173 of the published Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claim, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2025 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and/or are moot.
12. Applicant argues (at pp. 10-11) that the claim language is not directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101, but instead “the claim features are directed to a specific improvement in computer capabilities” through the use of “the PageRank method and the power method, which are general ranking algorithms” and hence the subject matter of the claims is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 9 above in this office action, the claim language recites an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One. At Step 2A Prong Two, the additional (computer) elements are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception at Step 2A Prong Two; furthermore, the additional elements do not add an inventive concept (“significantly more”) at Step 2B, and the claims are thus ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner also notes that “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”, as noted by the court in TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – see discussion at MPEP 2106(I).
13. Applicant’s arguments with regard to the prior art rejections are moot, since these rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is 571 270 0317. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RUTAO WU, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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 .
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623