DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 11 November 2025.
Claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 15, and 17 – 20 are pending and have been examined; claims 2, 10, and 16 have been cancelled by Applicant.
This action has been made FINAL.
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 / Request for Reconsideration
Examiner notes that Applicant’s independent claims incorporate the previously identified Allowable Subject matter from previous claim 2. The prior 35 USC §102 rejection has been rendered moot.
Examiner further notes that Applicant’s response acknowledged the Specification Objection regarding the title (see Page 6 of Applicant’s remarks, first bullet point), however it does not appear that an amended specification with an amended title was submitted. As such, the objection remains.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Amended claim 1, under its broadest interpretation, is directed to a technical solution to solve the technical problem of providing a determination device capable of easily and efficiently perform division of a log in units of cases. According to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), "A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process. Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See . .. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that 'could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind')." (Emphasis added). Amended claim 1 recites the limitations of "providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary turn on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule." (Emphasis added). At least the above limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human mind cannot practically perform "turn on/off various settings on a graphical user interface." Applying the rule in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of mental process. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of a mental process as asserted in the Office Action”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner first notes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”, which states, among other things, that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer1.
In respect to the argument that “a user cannot practically perform turn on/off various settings on a graphical user interface”, Examiner notes that a user using a USER INTERFACE (UI) to change settings or interact with graphics / data is what a user interface is designed for; as such, a user can very much practically turn on/off various settings on a graphical user interface. Further, as noted in the rejection below, the claimed limitation of providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary turn on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule is considered an additional element, and not as a part of the abstract idea itself.
Applicant further argues “Even assuming, arguendo, amended claim 1 falls into the grouping of a mental process, amended claim 1 is still not directed to an abstract idea because amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application (e.g., "providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary tum on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule"). According to MPEP § 2106.04(d)(l), "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." (Emphasis added). Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(l), amended claim 1 recites specific improvements to the technical field of providing a determination device capable of easily and efficiently perform division of a log in units of cases. For example, amended claim 1 recites limitations of "providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary turn on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule." (Emphasis added). Such features help user to manually select settings.
Additionally, these data analysis steps are different from "a claim to 'collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,' where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, SA." (id.; 48 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016); emphasis added). Contrarily to Electric Power Group, amended claim 1 recites detailed features (e.g., "providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary tum on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule" etc.), which are beyond a high-level of generality.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) further explains that "the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology ... In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim 'as a whole,' in other words, the claim should be evaluated 'as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.' When performing this evaluation, examiners should be 'careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100."(Emphasis added). Applying the rules of MPEP here, claim 1 recites limitations of "providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary tum on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule." Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea even if one were to assume that claim 1 falls into the grouping of a mental process” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner initially notes that independent claim 5 still recites no hardware or technology, and that the step of ‘providing a graphical user interface’ still does not actually recite any hardware or computer (noting that the step amounts to merely providing, offering, or making a UI available).
Applicant’s claimed UI / GUI is mentioned four times in the entirety of Applicant’s disclosure, once in the background, and then again in the following paragraphs:
[0018] The operation log storage unit 15a stores the operation log to be processed. For example, the operation log storage unit 15a stores, as the operation log, "occurrence time" of the operation, "unique information on an operated graphical user interface (GUI) component", and the like. In addition, in the operation log, information on one operation event is expressed as a collection of a plurality of attribute values (columns, items).
[0020] Note that, in the operation log, in addition to a GUI operation on the PC, input by some input device may be recorded, or command input on a character-based user interface (CUI) may be recorded. In a case of recording these other types of operations, it is necessary to increase the number of log items as necessary.
[0053] For example, in a case where the user determines that the temporarily divided position is inappropriate, the determination unit 14c may once cancel the temporary automatic division position and prompt the user to increase the number of exemplifications. By gradually increasing the number of exemplifications by such interactive exchange, it is possible to cause the user to more efficiently exemplify operation events. Further, by providing a UI that allows ON/OFF of various thresholds set in the present embodiment and rules adopted by estimation, it is also possible to respond to more advanced user requirements.
According to the MPEP 2106.05(a) “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art”. Here, Applicant is asserting that providing a GUI that allows a user to turn on or off various thresholds provides for an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.
Applicant’s specification recites, in paragraph [0004] that “Conventionally, in analysis and visualization of an operation on a personal computer for finding an improvement point in business, a person manually performs processing of dividing the operation log for each case, for example, by visually confirming the operation log and dividing the operation log into files in units of cases”. As stated in the MPEP 2106.05(f) (2), a determination is to be made “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). 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).”
It is unclear, then, how providing a UI that allows a user to turn on/off settings (e.g., inputs into a search string or regarding the length of a search string; see Applicant’s disclosure, [0043]) provides an improvement to any technology. Merely providing a user a conventional way to input data into a computer does not amount to an improvement to the computer or technology. It is further noted that Applicant’s specification provides no description as to how the providing of the UI actually improves the technology (noting again that, according to the MPEP, that Applicant’s disclosure should provide “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement”). The mere statement in Applicant’s disclosure that “by providing a UI that allows ON/OFF of various thresholds set in the present embodiment and rules adopted by estimation, it is also possible to respond to more advanced user requirements” does not provide any detail regarding any technical improvement.
Applicant further argues “Even assuming, arguendo, amended claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea, amended claim 1 is patent eligible because it recites additional elements that are "unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field." (Section III(B) of 2019 PEG.). According to MPEP § 2106.05(a), "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome" and "the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception." (Emphasis added). Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a), amended claim 1 recites a particular solution to address the computer-centric challenge of providing a determination device capable of easily and efficiently perform division of a log in units of cases. For example, claim 1 recites "providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary tum on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule." (Emphasis added). These features are neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional in the field. Further, according to MPEP § 2106.05, "[!]imitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: ... Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b))." (MPEP § 2106.05). Similarly, here, claim 1 recites and uses a particular machine, such as a graphical user interface. Accordingly, the limitations recited in claim 1 qualifies as "significantly more". In summary, amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, because amended claim 1 recites features that do not fall into one of the enumerated groupings set forth in the 2019 PEG; and/or, because the features are integrated into a practical application; and/or, alternatively because amended claim 1 recites additional elements that are not well understood, routine, or conventional in the field. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of amended claim 1 and its dependent claims. Similar arguments also apply to amended claims 5 and 6 and respective dependent claims”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s specification provides NO evidence that the UI claimed is neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional in the field, nor does it provide any evidence that the UI provides amounts to a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b))." (MPEP § 2106.05). To the contrary, Applicant’s disclosure provides little to no detail regarding GUI, and further shows, at paragraphs [0067]-[0074], that the judicial exception is performed not on a particular machine, but that “Each component of each device that has been illustrated according to the embodiment described above is functionally conceptual and does not necessarily have to be physically configured as illustrated. In other words, a specific form of distribution and integration of individual devices is not limited to the illustrated form, and all or part of the configuration can be functionally or physically distributed and integrated in any unit according to various loads, usage conditions, and the like. Further, all or any part of each processing function performed in each device can be implemented by a CPU and a program to be analyzed and executed by the CPU or can be implemented as hardware by wired logic”, which is the opposite of a particular machine. See also FIG. 13.
Further to the point that Applicant’s invention, as a whole amounts to no more than a mental process being performed on a generic computer hardware, Applicant’s own disclosure states, at paragraph [0068]:
“Further, among the individual processing described in the embodiment described above, all or part of the processing described as being automatically performed can be manually performed, or all or part of the processing described as being manually performed can be automatically performed by a known method (emphasis added)”.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. “37 C.F.R. 1.72 Title and abstract. (a) The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible”. See MPEP 606. Examiner notes that a search of patents or applications with the title including “Determination Device” and “Determination Method” and “Determination Program” showed over 175 results, not including foreign patent databases.
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, 3 – 9, 11 – 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 5 recites the limitations of: receiving designation of a division position of a log;
creating a rule for determining the division position of the log on a basis of a relationship between attribute values of log events before and after the received division position, wherein the creating further comprises creating the rule for determining the division position of the log on a basis of a length from a start to an end of a log divided by the received division position and the relationship between the attribute values of the log events before and after the received division position;
determining a division position of a log to be processed by using the created rule; and
providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary tum on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting and analyzing information, which encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion2. The claim limitations amount to collecting information, creating a rule for analyzing the information, and using the created rule to analyze the collected data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. (Step 2A-1: YES).
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Exemplary independent claim 5, recites the additional step / element of providing a graphical user interface in which a user arbitrary tum on/off settings of various thresholds and the created rule; however, under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s disclosure, this amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (though, in respect to claim 5, no other hardware is present, so it is not quite clear how a UI is provided). Further, it is noted that the step of receiving designation of a division position of a log can also be considered to be selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a type of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In further respect to independent claims 1 and 6, they recite a determination device comprising a processor configured to execute operations and computer-readable non-transitory recording medium, respectively, however these are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial
exception into a practical application (Step 2A-2: NO).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 11 – 15:
Claims 11 and 12 merely further describe the creating step;
Claims 13 and 14 merely further describe the collected data (which does not change its character as information);
Claim 15 merely recites generic computer hardware / software, recited at a high level of generality, on which to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry3 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0067]-[0074], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation4.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Elmqvist Wulcan; Elias et al. US 20150081706 A1 Event Timeline Generation
Xia; Sharine US 20210334188 A1 Identification of Log Events for Computing Systems
Tora; Shotaro et al. US 20200057906 A1 Analysis Device, Analysis Method, And Analysis Program
Kimura; Tatsuaki et al. US 20170228265 A1 Log Analysis Apparatus, Log Analysis System, Log Analysis Method And Computer Program
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 ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C “3.Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53”.
2 See also Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. 1 August 2016) “Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”.
3 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or 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.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
4 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).