DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after non-final rejection received on August 22, 2025. Claim(s) 3-9 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims foreign priority to Japanese application JP 2023-049766 filed on March 27, 2023
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants amendments to claims 2-8 in the response filed on August 22, 2025. Claim 1 has been canceled in this response. New claim 9 is added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 2-9 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is and system and method for scenario generation which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 7 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 9 and product Claim 8. Claim 7 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
storing, in a memory, base scenario data comprising a node table, a link table, an editing-order table, and a display-order table that define a graph of scenario-element instances;
receiving real-time user edits to the graph via a graphical user interface and updating the node table and link table in response to the edits;
generating the editing-order table based on editing timestamps and generating the display-order table based on a layer hierarchy and the editing-order table;
receiving a designation of a target person class;
generating proposed scenario data by reordering scenario-element instances based on the designated target person class using the display-order table; and
generating a proposed scenario including the two or more scenario element instances whose order is changed; and
presenting the reordered scenario element instance on a display using a timeline animation that progresses in synchronization with time-axis indicator, enabling efficient visual rendering without regenerating the graph.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Storing data to define a graph, receiving edits to update data, generating timestamps, generating a proposed scenario based on data adjustments and presenting the scenario recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “a memory”, “a GUI”, and “a display” language, the claim encompasses a person collecting data to be stored in different tables, and using the data to generate a proposed scenario to be presented vs. time using his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer hardware does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The interface, storage device, and a processor connected to interface and storage devices in Claim 9 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, executed by a processor causing a computer to execute in Claim 8 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 8 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a memory and a display (claim 7), a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, executed by a processor (Claim 8) and/or a display and a memory (Claim 9). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 7, and 8 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0019 and 0020] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [0019: the scenario generation system 10 is a physical computer system (a system including one or more physical computers), but may be a logical computer system (for example, a cloud computing system) based on a physical computer system. 0020: An input device 11 and a display device 12 may be connected to the interface device 101, or a user terminal 112 (for example, an information processing terminal such as a personal computer or a smartphone) may be connected to the interface device 101.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 7, and 8 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-6 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 7, and 8 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2016.05(d), (f), (g), and (h) which are activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-6 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The remarks begin on page 9 of the response on August, 22, 2025. The Applicants begin with a summary of the claims and support for the amendments (remarks page 9). The Applicant request reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection as the Applicant believes the application is in condition for allowance.
The Examiner does not agree with the Applicants position and the rejection remains.
The arguments move to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 claiming the amendments to the claims clarify the technical nature of the invention. Applicant asserts that the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Argument start with Step 2A, Prong One, the Applicants argue that the claims do not fall within any of the recognized idea categories. Specifically the Applicant states the amended claims define a particular technological approach to the computer based technical problem of efficiently generating, dynamic reordering, and displaying a structured scenario content based on real time user input and user classifications. The claims point to the node table, link table, editing order table, and display order table with the structured graphical user interface for a timeline animation which shows technical improvement (remarks page 10). Further, it’s argued that the claims do not recite a mathematical formula, algorithm or calculations. Nor do the claims describe fundamental economic principles, commercial interactions, or personal behavior management. The Applicants positions is that the claims are not a mental process as the invention is inherently tied to computer operation, structured data storage, and real time graphical display.
The Examiner does not agree with the Applicant. First, the Examiner did not cite certain methods of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts in the rejection, therefore the arguments are irrelevant. Additionally, the argument are not persuasive as the application of a computer is simply as a tool to perform the otherwise abstract idea. Collecting data, storing data in tables and adjusting data to output a graph vs. time is not above human mental capabilities. Simply storing the data as one or more tables in a memory, and using the display to represent the data on a graphical user interface does not integrate the concept in to a practical application. The idea of storing and displaying information is covered under MEPE 2106.05(d)-(h) as functions which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra solution activity. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts") related to storing and updating tables in a memory. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Additionally, with respect to the argument for efficiently generating, dynamically reordering, and displaying scenario content, the counts have determined, Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)].
The arguments move on to Step 2A, Prong 2 where the position is that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Applicant cites a claimed specific technical improvement to conventional scenario generation technology which is computationally intensive, resulting in slow response times and poor system performance. The arguments cites the remedy to the technical deficiencies with an inventive combination of structured data tables, real time editing, layer management, and dynamic timeline animation with visual indicator. The specification cites paragraphs [0035-0070] for a system that stores base scenario data as structured tables and the processor updates the tables in real time to generate proposed scenarios tailored to user classifications. The result being an animated timeline with display indicator which is argued to be a concrete improvement in real-time responsiveness, reduced processor overhead, and reduced memory bandwidth. It is further argued that it’s fundamentally technical as it solves and identified technical problem of computation inefficiency and scenario visualization using technical components.
The Examiner does not agree with the Applicants arguments. The Examiner did not find integration into practical application in Step 2A, Prong 2. The Examiner find the judicial exception simply uses the computer as a tool to perform the underlying abstract concept. The storage of data in one or more tables in a memory and the processing of data updates using a processor is not an improvement to the computer in any way. Even the steps of collecting or obtaining data, performing some analysis, and displaying the data is outlined in MPEM2106.05(g)(3) Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information [in a power-grid environment], for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There is nothing particular regarding the display of information vs. time. There is not control aspect. The steps are simply obtaining and using data for analysis of a scenario and displaying the result. The basic concept is a financial institution collecting data form a customer and applying tables and classifications such as what are the customers goals. Saving for a home, emergency savings, buying a car, inventing and then updating the information based on the response wile tracking progress towards said stated goal. The idea of using a computer (processor) and storing the data in one or more tables for display does not integrate into a practical application.
Additionally the courts determined the use of a computer in a generalized fashion to increase efficiency does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieve more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. SiRF Tech., Inc.
The arguments proceed to Step 2B (Remarks page 13), where the Applicants position is that the amended claims provide a specific implementation that is neither conventional nor generic. Specifically the argument is the use of structured data, with node tables, link tables, editing tables, and display tables is far more specific and technically meaningful than generic databases or standard data repositories. Further, the argument cites real-time editing and display tables according to hierarchical structures and time stamps to reduce computational overhead avoiding redundant regeneration. Applicant argues this as a critical technical improvement in structured data and display order.
Further, the arguments claims the animated timeline with indicator provides immediate visual feedback as content is dynamically changing solving a longstanding technical problem of real time visual interactivity improving computational performance.
The Examiner is not convinced for the following reasons. First, the use of structured data is not indicative of practical application, and in this case it’s being used as a data storage in the form of multiple tables. This arrangement of data does not yield a practical application. There is no improvement to the way data is stored or used from the database or repository. Examiner does not agree that real time updates reduces computational overhead. By comparison the courts recognize that several examples which may not be sufficient to show improvement including A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Additionally, the display of data on a time line and the concept of dynamic updates is not a technical problem, rather it’s a technical solution of a no technical or business problem. Also, there does not seem to be any conventional interactivity of the display but instead it’s simply conveying the scenario data based on the data collected and processed.
Lastly, the arguments cite case law for eligibility (Remarks pages 14-15) where the Applicant discusses Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics where the court recognized graphical interface claims for improvement in functionality and DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com for generation and management of graphical content rooted in a technological environment. The argument is that both of these cases were found to be eligible and since the current claims include a graphical user interface displacing information the case should also be eligible.
The Examiner does not agree with the Applicants. Regarding DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. While the claims may have involved display of information, the crux of the claims was the interactions and manipulation with the internet to reach the desired result, and was a change from the conventional sequence which was standard at the time.
Core Wireless on the other hand involved a user display but also more than just presenting data, it was selectable by the user to launch the respective application. In this case, the GUI is merely to display data of a target person class. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
In summary, the arguments are not persuasive and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 November 24, 2025