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
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on July 31, 2025, wherein claims 1 and 11 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC §101:
The amended claims still only use abstract information for analysis and manipulation to get determine more abstract information – which is then used for abstract decision-making (Applicant’s idea of using abstract information (e.g. IP/patent information) to evaluate companies). As stated before, claims 1 and 11 recite obtaining data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data analysis and manipulation (comparing information; including using mathematical concepts (using measurement, weight, and score to obtain and use results); etc.,) to determine more information/data, and providing/displaying this determined information/data for further evaluation and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps/calculations to analyze and determine further data to use in the claimed limitations. The claims, hence covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (industrial/intellectual property rights evaluation and business/management relations)) and mathematical concepts.
The claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality, performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers and computing/technical elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There is no improvement in any technology or any technical field/environment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/etc., (for example, device, processor, memory, etc., (and generic/general-purpose computers an computing elements, etc., stated in the specification) (in Independent claim 1); no technical components claimed at all in independent claim 11 (and there is only generic/general-purpose computers an computing elements, etc., stated in the specification)) in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (industrial/intellectual property rights evaluation and business/management relations)) and mathematical concepts. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
As stated before and repeated here, claims (1, 11) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (for example, the claims recite device, processor, memory, etc., (and generic/general-purpose computers an computing elements, etc., stated in the specification) (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10); no technical components claimed at all in independent claim 11 (and there is only generic/general-purpose computers an computing elements, etc., stated in the specification)). The claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computing devices and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0017 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0021 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0024 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Also, see rejection below.
35 USC §103 remarks:
Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose “using the hierarchical structure of classification codes to assign weighted classification scores for the purpose of evaluating a company” (previously presented in claim 8 (now cancelled) and now moved into the independent claims). It is noted that primary reference Barney was (and still is in the rejection below) used by the examiner to show “using the hierarchical structure of classification codes to assign weighted classification scores for the purpose of evaluating a company” (see rejection below and rejections of claim 8 (now rolled into the independent claims) in previous non-final Office action dated May 19, 2025). Lee was only used to show that “classification score is configured to be the hierarchical coefficient that is set in stages so that the lower layer is larger than the upper layer for each layer of the classification code.” Applicant’s stated argument against Lee is towards “using the hierarchical structure of classification codes to assign weighted classification scores for the purpose of evaluating a company” which was shown by the examiner to be disclosed by Barney. Applicant does not argue Applicant’s concerned limitations (“using the hierarchical structure of classification codes to assign weighted classification scores for the purpose of evaluating a company”) of claim 8 (and now part of the independent claims) in comparison to Barney (as they were rejected by Barney and not Lee).
Barney discloses “wherein the industrial property right is a patent right or a utility model right, and wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to derive the evaluation results using a classification score, as the weight information, set for each classification code in the patent classification having a hierarchical structure of a plurality of classification codes” (see paras. 0010 [patents…technology classifications], 0059-0060 [patents…classifications…classification…statistical variants; see with 0144-0148+], 0065-0070 [ scoring and weighting system which assigns scores and relative weightings to individual identified characteristics of a patent or group of patents…weighted scores…scores…parameters…analysis…metrics…classification and sub-classification]; see also 0160-0163, 0133-0136, 0166). Barney does not explicitly state wherein the classification score is configured to be the hierarchical coefficient that is set in stages so that the lower layer is larger than the upper layer for each layer of the classification code. Analogous art Lee discloses (and not argued by Applicant) “wherein the classification score is configured to be the hierarchical coefficient that is set in stages so that the lower layer is larger than the upper layer for each layer of the classification code” (¶¶ 0096-0097 [parent-child layering], 0098-0099 [classification in hierarchy tree and where parent classification (upper layer) has children classifications (lower layer that is larger amount or classifications (codes))], 0111). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Barney wherein the classification score is configured to be the hierarchical coefficient that is set in stages so that the lower layer is larger than the upper layer for each layer of the classification code as taught by analogous art Lee in order to make accurate and optimized evaluations since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lee would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D).
As shown above Barney indeed discloses the argued limitation “using the hierarchical structure of classification codes to assign weighted classification scores for the purpose of evaluating a company” and Lee discloses the limitation “wherein the classification score is configured to be the hierarchical coefficient that is set in stages so that the lower layer is larger than the upper layer for each layer of the classification code.” Additionally, as shown in the rejection below Barney in view of Lee discloses the Applicant’s entire claimed concept/limitations.
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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 1 is directed to device (i.e. product or article of manufacture) and claim 11 is directed to a method (i.e., process). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The claims (independent (1, 11) recite obtaining data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data analysis and manipulation (comparing information; including using mathematical concepts (using measurement, weight, and score to obtain and use results); etc.,) to determine more information/data, and providing/displaying this determined information/data for further evaluation and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps/calculations to analyze and determine further data to use in the claimed limitations.
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 11), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (industrial/intellectual property rights evaluation and business/management relations)) and mathematical concepts. If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/etc., (for example, device, processor, memory, etc., (and generic/general-purpose computers an computing elements, etc., stated in the specification) (in Independent claim 1); no technical components claimed at all in independent claim 11 (and there is only generic/general-purpose computers an computing elements, etc., stated in the specification)) in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (industrial/intellectual property rights evaluation and business/management relations)) and mathematical concepts. As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality, performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers and computing/technical elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The claims (1, 11) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (for example, the claims recite device, processor, memory, etc., (and generic/general-purpose computers an computing elements, etc., stated in the specification) (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10); no technical components claimed at all in independent claim 11 (and there is only generic/general-purpose computers an computing elements, etc., stated in the specification)). The claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computing devices and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0017 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0021 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0024 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barney (US 2007/0073748) in view of Lee et al., (US 2012/0278244).
As per claim 1, Barney discloses a company evaluation device comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute instructions for processing data, the instructions being stored in a memory; the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (¶¶ 0011 [shows the computing elements – applications/instructions, databases, user interface; see wit 0023 [computer…database]], 0214 [computer network…database (storing/stored information)], 0243 [computer…database; see with 0074 showing system architecture in a computing environment]) to:
evaluate the company, and derive an evaluation result of company using weight information that reflects in corporate evaluation a degree of relevance of information regarding one or more industrial property rights linked to the company to management indicators incorporated in the management policy of the company ((note that “industrial property rights” are also “intellectual property rights” as stated by the Applicant in the specification at para. 0013+); see ¶¶ 0052 [analyzing intellectual property…patents, etc.,…relevant documents…scoring…ranking; see with 0132 [evaluating…degree of relevance…weighting…data]], 0056 [strategies…guidelines (policies)], 0057 [companies…evaluating…strateg[ies]], 0065-0066 [discuss algorithms and rules to get results], 0143 [quantify the degree of relevance or relevance score], 0170-0176 [(discuss management indicators incorporated in the management policy of the company) strategic planning, strategic acquisition analysis, and industry economic/financial analysis…SOM mapping, relevance analysis and/or ratings can advantageously be deployed…field of mergers and acquisitions it is often desirable to be able to screen, test and qualify potential merger or acquisition targets against one or more strategic goals]; see with 0165 [SOM relevance mapping…represent, differentiate, cluster and categorize a plurality of related patents or other documents of interest within a given technology space based on relational citation analysis, contextual similarity analysis, and/or calculated relevance scores and wherein a scaled distance between any two selected patents represented on the SOM map 300 is generally proportional to or representative of a determined degree of relevance]),
wherein the industrial property right is a patent right or a utility model right, and wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to derive the evaluation results using a classification score, as the weight information, set for each classification code in the patent classification having a hierarchical structure of a plurality of classification codes (see citations above and also see ¶¶ 0010 [patents…technology classifications], 0059-0060 [patents…classifications…classification…statistical variants; see with 0144-0148+], 0065-0070 [ scoring and weighting system which assigns scores and relative weightings to individual identified characteristics of a patent or group of patents…weighted scores…scores…parameters…analysis…metrics…classification and sub-classification]; see also 0160-0163, 0133-0136, 0166).
Barney discloses the company evaluation device and classification score (see citations above), but does not explicitly state wherein the classification score is configured to be the hierarchical coefficient that is set in stages so that the lower layer is larger than the upper layer for each layer of the classification code.
Analogous art Lee discloses wherein the classification score is configured to be the hierarchical coefficient that is set in stages so that the lower layer is larger than the upper layer for each layer of the classification code (¶¶ 0096-0097 [parent-child layering], 0098-0099 [classification in hierarchy tree and where parent classification (upper layer) has children classifications (lower layer that is larger amount or classifications (codes))], 0111).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Barney wherein the classification score is configured to be the hierarchical coefficient that is set in stages so that the lower layer is larger than the upper layer for each layer of the classification code as taught by analogous art Lee in order to make accurate and optimized evaluations since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lee would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 11, claim 11 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Kudo et al., (US 2015/0073929): Propose a patent value evaluating device capable of identifying the causal association with business activity. A patent power calculating device comprises a patent history data acquiring section, an item content extracting section for searching for a combination of names of standard items indicating legal procedures and extracting the item contents and their procedure dates, a cost table holding section for holding a cost table where the combinations of item contents and prepared costs are associated with one another, an obsolescence function storage section for storing obsolescence functions used as indications of the obsolescence of the technology of the patent, a post-obsolescence cost calculating section for acquiring costs from the cost table and calculating the post-obsolescence cost by using the procedure date, and the obsolescence function, a totalizing section for totalizing the calculated post-obsolescence costs, and outputting the totalized value as the patent power.
Jessen et al., (US 2016/0350886): Discusses analysis and presentation of patent and business data in a common interface is described. The aggregation and analysis includes a method and system for evaluating a patent or patent application and proposed claim text by examining claim related information maintained in databases as well as image related information maintained in databases. The method includes deriving unique signatures of individual claims and ascertaining scope of individual claims relative to other claims in a collection, such as claims found in a classification schema and also deriving unique characteristics from images and ascertaining the scope of similarity between the images. A signature and scope of the patent claims and images may be graphically depicted to a user using various graphic elements in a user interface.
Masuyama et al., (US 2007/0083402): Provides an enterprise evaluation device and an enterprise evaluation program capable of calculating and outputting an index for judging the attitude of a particular enterprise for research and development according to the investment size for the research and development activities. The enterprise evaluation device includes: financial affair information acquisition means for acquiring the investment size for research and development and a manufacturing/sales profit of a particular enterprise from financial affair database containing information on financial affairs of enterprises; research and development investment size ratio calculation means for dividing the acquired research and development investment by the manufacturing/sales profit so as to calculate the research and development investment ratio; and output means for outputting the calculated research and development investment ratio on display means or the like. Thus, it is possible to calculate and display the research and development investment ratio and know how much ratio of the profit obtained by manufacturing/sales is distributed to the research and development activity in a particular enterprise.
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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625