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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 1/21/2026 are entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22 are pending.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 12-14 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 4, 9-10, and 15-20 are previously presented.
Claims 21-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility framework, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite the abstract idea grouping of “Mathematical Concepts”. Applicant argues that while the process involves mathematical calculations, they are directed to a tangible technological process for controlling a computer to analyze and visualize data trends (see Remarks, pp. 13-14).
The argument is not persuasive. The claims are not eligible for streamlined analysis because the eligibility of the claims is not self-evident. As such, the claims are given the full analysis under the two-step eligibility framework. Under Step 2A Prong 1, the representative claim 1 limitations delineated in the rejection set forth or describe analysis of time series data, creating a graph, performing calculations, and identifying a pattern of a graph shape. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the steps cannot be “practically performed in the human mind” because the human mind is not equipped to calculate areas of square functions and plot hundreds or thousands of data points on an “eye map” in real-time to identify transition tendencies across massive datasets (see Remarks, pg. 14).
The argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not identify the claims as reciting the abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes”.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 of the framework for determining eligibility, Applicant argues that the claim limitations recite a specific set of rules that improve an existing technological process for controlling a computer to analyze and visualize data trends (see Remarks, pp. 14-16).
Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims improve coordinated memory access (see Remarks, pg. 14). However, the features drawn to memory access are both claimed and described in the specification at a high level of generality such that it does not convey a technological improvement to memory access itself. For example, the specification (US PG-PUB 2024/0311918 A1) [0055-0056] lists hardware components including ROM 502, RAM 503, HD 504, HDD controller 505, and describe them as standard computer components with the roles of the memory components performing ordinary functions. Thus, the claimed features of “storing, in a memory data points…” and “generating screen information by accessing the store data points” are not indicative of a technological improvement.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims improve “specialized visualization”. However, these improvements are improvements in the abstract idea itself. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the disclosed “eye map” is a scatter diagram used to display the results of data analysis, so that a user can visually interpret patterns in a time-series data. The claim limitations drawn to these features fall under the abstract idea, with the additional elements being the use of computer technology to perform the data operations and display the results. Here, the specification describes generating and displaying the diagram using generic screen generation and display techniques, without disclosing any specific improvement to the display technology itself. As such, the claimed features are not indicative of a technological improvement.
Specifically, Applicant argues that signal masking via non-linear filtering constitutes a technical improvement in the accuracy of automated trend detection (see Remarks, pg. 15). However, these improvements are also improvements in the abstract idea itself. As discussed above, an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Here, any improvement in the accuracy of automated trend detection arises only from the underlying mathematical analysis itself, rather than from a technological improvement in computer functionality. As such, the claimed features are not indicative of a technological improvement.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed invention transforms raw time-series data into a specialized diagnostic output used to guide research and development (see Remarks, pp. 15-16). However, the invention does not transform any physical or tangible article. Per MPEP 2106.05(c), transformation of a physical or tangible object or substance is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application) than the transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment. Here, the invention merely transforms one set of data representations into another analytical representation and displays the results. The argued “specialized diagnostic output” reflects only abstract data analysis and presentation of results, and not the type of transformation of matter or tangible subject matter which is indicative of eligibility.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed invention creates a unique, relative data environment, which is a specific computer-implemented data structure allowing for the simultaneous comparison of disparate, asynchronous data streams that are otherwise mathematically incomparable (see Remarks, pg. 16). However, the claimed steps are not indicative of improvements to computer-implemented data structures or specialized data environments themselves. The specification explains that the system performs mathematical normalization of values and applies a formula for conversion, after which the resulting coordinates are plotted on a scatter diagram, i.e. “eye map”. The ability to compare datasets arises from the mathematical normalization of values, and not from the creation of a new computational environment or technological framework. Here, the claim reflects abstract mathematical standardization and visualization, and not a technological improvement in computer data structures or processing.
Regarding Step 2B of the framework for determining eligibility, Applicant argues that the claims provide an inventive concept through the non-conventional combination of calculating two distinct areas and using their coordinates to identify pattern transition tendencies (see Remarks, pp. 16-17).
Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims provide a series of processing flows including cumulative value -> normalization -> calculating area using a square function -> conversion of area, which is not merely a calculation, but a technical means for enhancing the pattern identification accuracy when displaying the data on the scatter diagram; and that although the application involves mathematical concepts, it possesses the technical feature of improving the accuracy of time-series data pattern identification (see Remarks, pp. 16-17). However, the claims are not indicative of a technological improvement for similar reasons as discussed with regards to Step 2A Prong 2. With regards to the sequence of steps, 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. The limitations do not provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, nor do they provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the specification describes a user interface (UI) in which the eye map is generated, sent to the terminal apparatus, and additional information is displayed in response to user operation; and also states that "When the user clicks any data point with a mouse cursor or the like, a keyword 261 corresponding to the data point, an appearance frequency 262, and a first appearance year 263, etc., are displayed." Applicant argues that this is a technical feature of providing an interactive UI (see Remarks, pg. 17). However, these features (new claims 21-22) are also not indicative of a technological improvement. The specification describes the user interaction only as a generic graphical interface feature for viewing information. The disclosure explains that when the user clicks on a data point, the system displays associated information. This interaction merely allows the user to retrieve and display underlying data associated with a plotted point. The specification does not contain an improvement to operation of graphical user interfaces itself, but instead performs standard functions using generic display and input mechanisms. Here, the features are generic presentation and retrieval of information, rather than improvement to user interface technology or computer functionality. Thus, the features do not provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, nor do they provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
For the above reasons, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained herein.
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 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22 are directed to a product or system and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent product non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claims 13 and 14. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a process performed in an information processing system, the process comprising:
acquiring data with which at least one of a year, a month, a date, an hour, a minute, or a second is associated;
extracting at least one analysis target from the data acquired at the acquiring;
creating a graph of a cumulative value of a value relating to the analysis target with respect to a period;
calculating a first area formed by the graph and an x-axis, and a second area formed by a square function of the graph and the x-axis;
identifying, based on positions of data points in a scatter diagram in which the first area is used as an x-axis and the second area is used as a y-axis, a pattern of a graph shape indicating a trend of transition tendencies of an appearance frequency of the extracted analysis target;
storing, in a memory, data points representing the first area and the second area for the extracted analysis target, wherein the stored data points are associated with the identified pattern;
generating screen information by accessing the stored data points for displaying the scatter diagram, the scatter diagram including the data points in correspondence with the graph shape patterns which have been identified; and
transmitting the screen information of the screen to a terminal via a network,
wherein:
the calculating includes calculating a second area formed by a square function of the graph and the x-axis, and using the first area formed by the graph and the x-axis and the second area to convert the second area into a third area by a following formula (6) where A1 represents the first area, A2 represented the second rea, and B2 represents the third area, and
[Formula 6]
PNG
media_image1.png
96
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the identifying includes identifying the pattern of the graph shape based on positions of data points in a scatter diagram in which an x-axis represents the first area and a y-axis represents the third area.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mathematical Concepts”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations, as they set forth or describe analysis of time series data, creating a graph, performing calculations, and identifying a pattern of a graph shape. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and information processing system in which the process is performed in claim 1 is just (1) applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations; and (2) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 13 and 14 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (preamble); information processing system in which the process is performed (preamble)
Claim 13: circuitry; memory
Claim 14: circuitry; memory
The computer hardware/software is/are 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 14 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)
Step 2B
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 pg. 57 about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 13, and 14 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 15-22 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claims 1, 13, and 14, and thus correspond to “Mathematical Concepts” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 15-20 recite limitations drawn to training and using a “learned model”. The limitations are recited at a high level and described in the specification in a manner that does not convey a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. Even considering these limitations, the computer is still merely used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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 computer hardware/software is similarly 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. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masuyama (US 2009/0070101 A1) discloses a device (100) for automatically creating an information analysis report includes a processing device (1), an input device (2), a recording device (3), and an output device (4). When creating an information analysis report: a document to be surveyed and a document to be compared are specified and inputted; an information analysis condition is inputted; a population document formed by a document group similar to the document to be surveyed is selected from the document to be compared; an index word characteristic to the population document of the document to be surveyed is extracted; according to the population document and the index word, an information analysis report representing the feature of the document to be surveyed is created; and the created information report document is outputted to display means, recording means, or communication means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693