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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed on April 28, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, and the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and argument presented by the Applicant(s); however, the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not persuasive and maintained for the reasons noted below. Claims 1-8 are now pending in the application.
Explanation of Rejection
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-8: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A factor analysis support system executed by a computer for time-series manufacturing data, the system comprising:
a time-series causal model storage unit configured to store, for each time-series variable, a trained time-series causal prediction model generated using lag variable data representing a predetermined time window of preceding time steps;
a lag variable generation unit configured to generate, from time-series data of an analysis target, structured lag-variable data including, for each time step, values of a plurality of time-series variables over the predetermined time window;
a contribution degree calculation unit configured to execute a trained predictor model to generate contribution degree data representing a time-expanded contribution vector including contribution values for each time-series variable at each time step to an objective variable;
a restoration rate calculation unit configured to:
execute the stored trained time-series causal prediction models using the structured lag-variable data,
generate contribution propagation coefficients representing inter- variable and inter-time-step influence relationships, and
construct contribution degree restoration rate data defining propagation relationships between time-series variables at different time steps for restoring contribution degrees between time-series variables at different time steps;
a contribution degree restoration unit configured to:
iteratively propagate the time-expanded contribution vector in reverse chronological order using the propagation relationships, and
aggregate propagated contribution values to generate root-factor contribution data corresponding to the objective variable and having fewer dimensions than the time-expanded contribution vector: and
an output unit configured to output the aggregated root-factor contribution data.
Step 2A:
Prong I:
The claim recites the steps of “a contribution degree calculation … a restoration rate calculation [and] …., execute the stored trained time-series causal prediction models using the structured lag-variable data, …, generate contribution propagation coefficients representing inter- variable and inter-time-step influence relationships, and construct contribution degree restoration rate data defining propagation relationships between time-series variables at different time steps for restoring contribution degrees between time-series variables at different time steps; iteratively propagate the time-expanded contribution vector in reverse chronological order using the propagation relationships, and aggregate propagated contribution values to generate root-factor contribution data corresponding to the objective variable and having fewer dimensions than the time-expanded contribution vector: and an output unit configured to output the aggregated root-factor contribution data.” These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process and/or human activity (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites “a factor analysis support system”, a lag variable generation unit, a contribution degree calculation unit time-series causal model storage unit”, “a contribution degree calculation unit”, “a restoration rate calculation unit” and “an output unit”. However, the system is a generic computer setup with generic computer and computational model for the purposes of carrying out the computational analysis and outputting on a generic output unit, such as a monitor. These are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 8 is analogous to claim 1, except it is directed to a method claim and includes a computer for the analysis. It recites a computer as additional element separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, this additional element, i.e. computer, is merely generic computer processing components that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to the causal model and its sources for the purposes of carrying out the prediction computational analysis, and would be considered a human thought process and or mathematical computation.
Dependent claim 3: the instant claim is directed to a predictor model, such as a probability measure, and use the outcome to calculate the degree of restoration rate, would be considered a human thought process and or mathematical computation.
Dependent claim 4: the instant claim is directed to the characterization of the root factor and how it is computed, and it would be considered a human thought process and or mathematical computation.
Dependent claim 5: the instant claim is directed to the output unit, and output unit or the act of outputting a result, and considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and it is outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 6: the instant claim is directed to a display having to show a factor analysis, considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and it is outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 7: the instant claim is directed to having a display to show a graph of the computational analysis, such as the contribution degree, and is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and it is outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-8: Horiwaki et al. (U.S. PAP 2018/0307219, hereon Horiwaki) discloses a failure cause extraction system which includes an input section, an initial causal relation model construction condition setting section, a data aggregation section, a causal relation model construction section, a subset extraction section, a subset and domain knowledge verification section, a causal relation model construction condition restriction setting section. The input section acquires monitor data which indicates a state of a product manufacturing process, quality data which is a result of a quality testing process of the product, a causal relation model construction condition which indicates a condition in a case where a causal relation model is constructed, and domain knowledge of a target manufacturing process. The initial causal relation model construction condition setting section sets an initial causal relation model construction condition, which is an initial condition in the case where the causal relation model is constructed, using the causal relation model construction condition. The data aggregation section aggregates the monitor data and the quality data as manufacturing data. The causal relation model construction section constructs the causal relation model on the manufacturing data.
The instant application differs in that the system or method includes “a contribution degree calculation unit configured to calculate, using the time-series causal model …and contribution degree restoration unit configured to restore, based on the contribution degree restoration rate calculated by the contribution degree calculation unit, the contribution degree of each time series variable at each time to the contribution degree of the [another] time series variable at the [another] time, and to calculate the transition of the contribution degree by a root factor with respect to the objective variable.”
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on April 28, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered; however, they are not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained for the reasons noted above and further explained below.
Applicant(s) argued that “the claimed operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The lag-variable generation unit produces structured data including, for each time step, values of a plurality of time-series variables over a predetermined time window …” (see argument, page 10, second paragraph).
The sheer volume or the abstract idea of the algorithm does not preclude the computation as being performed by a human mind. The claim is directed to analyzing data and the output unit is configured to output “the aggregated root factor contribution data”; there is no transformation of the abstract idea to a significantly more than the abstract idea concept. Even the output suggests an outcome of an elaborate computational analysis.
For instance, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In the instant case, the collection of lag variables or the generation of time series data would be considered data gathering at a high level of generality, the various calculation unit noted in the claim are considered algorithms for the purposes of processing those lag variables in order to compute “the aggregated root-factor contribution data.” It known in computer world data are change from one form to another for the purposes of computational analysis and often read on abstract idea. The specific application claimed in the instant application is directed to a computational analysis of abstract idea without significantly more.
In the case of McRo, Inc., v. Bandai, the case deals with a computer-generated animation software for lip synchronization on which the specific numerical rules “morph weight sets” rather than an animator’s subjective judgement to transition between mouth positions based on spoken sounds (or phonemes) are considered. However, the analysis considered in the instant application does not transform to anytime similar or conceptionally as transformative to a significantly more than an abstract idea of McRo, Inc., vs Bandai case.
Likewise, in the case of Thales Visionix Inc., Vs. United States, is a technology related to head mounted helmet display developed by Elbit Systems where their technology has been used illegally for motion tracking technology. In a sense the mathematical concept noted in these claims did not invalidate the claims as nonstatutory, but this computational analysis be it with Thales Visionix, vs. United States or McRo, Inc., v. Bandai, seem to transfer the abstract concept into a significantly more than the abstract idea or the algorithm itself.
Accordingly, the amended claims of the instant application recite a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
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 ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights