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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information processing system comprising: a first life cycle management system in a manufacturing company that manufactures a final product by embedding one or more parts that are operated by software configured to manage information regarding the final product and the one or more parts and a first disclosure range of first software-related data contracted with a providing company that provides the one or more parts to the manufacturing company, wherein the first life cycle management system comprises a first contract information management unit that stores and manages first contract information management data indicating a contract disclosure level identifying the first disclosure range of the first software-related data; and a second life cycle management system in the providing company configured to manage a second disclosure range of second software-related data contracted with the manufacturing company, wherein the second life cycle management system comprises a second contract information management unit that stores and manages second contract information management data indicating a contract disclosure level identifying the second disclosure range of the second software-related data, wherein the first life cycle management system requests the second life cycle management system to disclose requested data within the first disclosure range, and wherein the second life cycle management system transmits the second data to the first life cycle management system corresponding to the requested data and when the requested software-related data falls within the second disclosure range”.
The limitations of “disclosure level identifying the first disclosure range of the first software-related data; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “an information processing system”, “a first life cycle management system”, and “a second life cycle management system” to perform the claimed steps. The “information processing system”, “first life cycle management system”, and “second life cycle management system” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “an information processing system”, “a first life cycle management system”, and “a second life cycle management system” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmits the second data to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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, the additional elements of using “an information processing system”, “a first life cycle management system”, and “a second life cycle management system” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmits the second data to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also discloses the additional element of “stores the second software-related data for each version of the software and transmits the second software-related data relating to the software of the version provided to the manufacturing company to concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmits the second software-related data to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “data includes at least one of a source code and internal structure information of the software, and the first or second disclosure range comprise a range in which both the source code and the internal structure information are disclosable, a range in which the source code is not disclosable and the internal structure information is disclosable, and a range in which both the source code and the internal structure information are not disclosable”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “unit that is capable of accessing the second contract information management data and the second software-related data, ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The claim also recites the additional elements of “displays the designated part name and the first or second software-related data transmitted from the second influence range analysis unit” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmits a request for disclosing data within a disclosure range of the acquired contract disclosure level to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The claim also recites the additional elements of “displays the designated part name and the first or second software-related data transmitted from the second influence range analysis unit” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “displays the acquired related law information along with the designated part name and the first software-related data” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmits a request for disclosing data relating to the software within the range of disclosure of the acquired contract disclosure level to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information processing method comprising: managing, by a first life cycle management system that is an information processing unit of a manufacturing company that manufactures a final product by embedding one or more parts that are operated by software, information regarding the final product and the one or more parts and a first disclosure range of first software-related data contracted with a providing company that provides the one or more parts to the manufacturing company, wherein the first life cycle management system comprises a first contract information management unit that stores and manages first contract information management data indicating a contract disclosure level identifying the first disclosure range of the first software-related data; managing, by a second life cycle management system which is an information processing system of the providing company, the second disclosure range of second software-related data contracted with the manufacturing company, wherein the second life cycle management system comprises a second contract information management unit that stores and manages second contract information management data indicating a contract disclosure level identifying the second disclosure range of the second software-related data; requesting, by the first life cycle management system, the second life cycle management system to disclose requested data within the first disclosure range, and transmitting, by the second life cycle management system, the second software-related data to the first life cycle management system corresponding to the requested data and when the requested data falls within the second disclosure range”.
The limitations of “An information processing method comprising: managing, by management data indicating a contract disclosure level identifying the second disclosure range of the second software-related data; requesting, by
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a first life cycle management system”, “a second life cycle management system”, “an information processing system” to perform the claimed steps. The “first life cycle management system”, “second life cycle management system”, “information processing system” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a first life cycle management system”, “a second life cycle management system”, “an information processing system” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting, by ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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, the additional elements of using “a first life cycle management system”, “a second life cycle management system”, “an information processing system” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting, by ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “are two distinct computer systems located in separate companies that must communicate over a network” and that this “cross-company network communication architecture cannot practically be performed in the human mind” (applicant arguments, page 10). However, the rejections of record do not indicate that the claimed systems as being abstract ideas that can be performed in the mind but as the additional elements of generic computer components that are used to apply the exception. In addition, while the argued “network architecture” is not explicitly claimed, any communication/transmission in the claim that is performed is also described in the rejections as being an additional element the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 recites "wherein the first life cycle management system comprises a first contract information management unit that stores and manages first contract information management data indicating a contract disclosure level identifying the first disclosure range of the first software-related data," and "wherein the second life cycle management system comprises a second contract information management unit that stores and manages second contract information management data indicating a contract disclosure level identifying the second disclosure range of the second software-related data” and that these “specific technical components managing contract disclosure data in separate systems across companies are not mental processes” (see applicant arguments, page 10). As previously explained, these systems are merely generic hardware and are additional elements and not abstract ideas. With respect to the contract information and managing a contract disclosure level and identifying disclosure range of data, these are just the management of data that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, which the courts have found to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant argues that claim 1 “addresses a technical problem with a technical solution” because the specification identifies a technical problem where "a product manufacturing company checks a history in the own company of parts, then checks a contract condition with a part providing company, and requests the part providing company to check a history of the parts in the part providing company by a mail or the like, and the part providing company receives the request, checks a history of the parts, and notifies the product manufacturing company of the history, which is cumbersome" in the Specification @ paragraph [0005] (see applicant argument, page 11). Applicant further argues that this configuration enables “configuration enables "information across companies in a configuration in which a manufacturing company procures parts and software from a providing company and manufactures a final product" to be acquired and that therefore the claims “recite a specific technical solution to this cross-company information acquisition problem” (see applicant argument, page 11). Here the applicant appears to be arguing that under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), specifically Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims describe a practical application. However, when using the 2019 PEG with respect to integration into a practical application, the applicant must show how any additional elements in the claim, individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). While the applicant does discuss improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field as described in MPEP 2106.05(a), they do not provide any discussion regarding additional elements nor how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as required under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, Prong Two. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that the characterization of the claimed life cycle management systems is in error because claim 1 recites “specific structural components including the first contract information management unit and the second contract information management unit, each managing specific contract information management data indicating contract disclosure levels” and the specification explains that the first life cycle management system “manages information regarding the final product and the parts embedded in the final product and a range of disclosure of data relating to software contracted with the part suppliers, and requests the product life cycle management systems 31-1 to 31-n to disclose software-related data within the range of disclosure” at paragraph [0015], and that therefore “[t]hese are not generic computer functions but rather specific technical implementations for managing and enforcing contractual disclosure ranges between separate company systems” (applicant arguments, pages 11-12). As previously explained, the rejections of record do not indicate that the claimed systems as being abstract ideas that can be performed in the mind but as the additional elements of generic computer components that are used to apply the exception. Further, the management of components or parts in contract information and disclosure levels, including any requests for such lifecycle information, is an abstract idea since these are just the management of data that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, which the courts have found to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that characterization of the transmission of software-related data as "insignificant extra-solution activity" is in error because “transmission of software-related data between the first and second life cycle management systems based on contractually-defined disclosure ranges is central to the claimed solution, not incidental to it” and that this “conditional transmission based on contract disclosure verification is the core technical function that solves the identified problem of cumbersome cross-company information acquisition” (applicant arguments, page 12). As previously answered, the applicant appears to be arguing that under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), specifically Step 2A, Prong Two, that the claims describe a practical application. However, when using the 2019 PEG with respect to integration into a practical application, the applicant must show how any additional elements in the claim, individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). While the applicant does discuss improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field as described in MPEP 2106.05(a), they do not provide any discussion regarding additional elements nor how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as required under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, Prong Two. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151