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
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on September 30, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an estimate system. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for calculating influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount. The claim recites the steps: calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry…, a production amount in the second industry…, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount including: calculating the sales influence amount by using an inter-industry correlation equation…, updating the coefficient based on a comparison between the sales influence amount and actual values of the sales amount…, correcting the sales influence amount by using transaction correlation information…, and updating the coefficient used in the inter-industry correlation equation based on a comparison between the cored influence amount and the actual values of the sales amount…, , under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements on 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 social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claim recites the steps: calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry…, a production amount in the second industry…, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount including: calculating the sales influence amount by using an inter-industry correlation equation…, updating the coefficient based on a comparison between the sales influence amount and actual values of the sales amount…, correcting the sales influence amount by using transaction correlation information…, and updating the coefficient used in the inter-industry correlation equation based on a comparison between the cored influence amount and the actual values of the sales amount…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “an inter-industry correlation equation”, which is directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory, and software programming instructions. The claim recites that the steps of “calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry…, a production amount in the second industry…, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount including: calculating the sales influence amount by using an inter-industry correlation equation…, updating the coefficient based on a comparison between the sales influence amount and actual values of the sales amount…, correcting the sales influence amount by using transaction correlation information…, and updating the coefficient used in the inter-industry correlation equation based on a comparison between the cored influence amount and the actual values of the sales amount…” are performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- 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, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry…, a production amount in the second industry…, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount including: calculating the sales influence amount by using an inter-industry correlation equation…, updating the coefficient based on a comparison between the sales influence amount and actual values of the sales amount…, correcting the sales influence amount by using transaction correlation information…, and updating the coefficient used in the inter-industry correlation equation based on a comparison between the cored influence amount and the actual values of the sales amount…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
(Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 6 and 8, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 6 directed to a method, independent claim 8 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5 and 9, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the calculating of the production influence amount includes calculating the sales influence amount by using a coefficient of a correlation equation…., that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described in the independent claim 1 above. Moreover, the claim recites calculating the sales influence amount by using a coefficient of a correlation equation, which is directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting generating the correlation equation by performing fitting by using past data of a sales amount…, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting correcting the sales influence amount by using a value representing a correlation…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the value representing the correlation between the evaluation target company and the first industry is a ration of a transaction amount…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the claim the additional elements wherein the processor is further caused to execute: providing the corrected sales influence amount to an external control system, and control the external control system to automatically adjust a production plan, procurement operation…
Step 2A-Prong Two:
The additional element “control the external control system to automatically adjust a production plan, procurement operation…is performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea of adjust a production plan, procurement operation…, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “providing the corrected sales influence amount to an external control system” is mere data gathering and transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and transmitting/receiving, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the external control system, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and transmitting/receiving data.
Step 2B: The additional element “providing the corrected sales influence amount to an external control system” was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of “providing the corrected sales influence amount to an external control system” is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and outputting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts, such as Receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantic, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, buySafe) and Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.
Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-9 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry in which the change has been observed, a production amount in the second industry to which an evaluation target company belongs, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount.” recited in the independent claims 1, 6, and 8.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-9 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see more details above).
1. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claimed Invention is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites a system for calculating influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount. The claim recites the steps: calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry…, a production amount in the second industry…, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount including: calculating the sales influence amount by using an inter-industry correlation equation…, updating the coefficient based on a comparison between the sales influence amount and actual values of the sales amount…, correcting the sales influence amount by using transaction correlation information…, and updating the coefficient used in the inter-industry correlation equation based on a comparison between the cored influence amount and the actual values of the sales amount…, , under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements on 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 social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claim recites the steps: calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry…, a production amount in the second industry…, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount including: calculating the sales influence amount by using an inter-industry correlation equation…, updating the coefficient based on a comparison between the sales influence amount and actual values of the sales amount…, correcting the sales influence amount by using transaction correlation information…, and updating the coefficient used in the inter-industry correlation equation based on a comparison between the cored influence amount and the actual values of the sales amount…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “an inter-industry correlation equation”, which is directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claim Integrates the Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory, and software programming instructions. The claim recites that the steps of “calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry…, a production amount in the second industry…, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount including: calculating the sales influence amount by using an inter-industry correlation equation…, updating the coefficient based on a comparison between the sales influence amount and actual values of the sales amount…, correcting the sales influence amount by using transaction correlation information…, and updating the coefficient used in the inter-industry correlation equation based on a comparison between the cored influence amount and the actual values of the sales amount…” are performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
While the Applicant argued that “the additional limitations amount to a technological improvement to a computer-based estimation system,” there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of calculating the sales influence amount, rather than to any technology.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
3. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claim Recites an Inventive Concept that Transforms the Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Applications”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
Step 2B:
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “calculating a production influence amount exerted on a second industry by a change based on change information indicating a change in a first industry…, a production amount in the second industry…, and production inducement information from the first industry to the second industry; and calculating a sales influence amount exerted on the evaluation target company by the change based on the production influence amount including: calculating the sales influence amount by using an inter-industry correlation equation…, updating the coefficient based on a comparison between the sales influence amount and actual values of the sales amount…, correcting the sales influence amount by using transaction correlation information…, and updating the coefficient used in the inter-industry correlation equation based on a comparison between the cored influence amount and the actual values of the sales amount…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nomoto et al. (US 2022/0012660) disclose the supply chain management apparatus includes: an input unit that receives input information indicating a change in market conditions;
Eder (US 2008/0027841) discloses an automated system (100) for integrating narrowly focused management systems in to a financial measurement and optimization system for a multi-enterprise commercial organization. A matrix of market value is developed for each enterprise in the organization.
Masuyama et al. (US 2007/0033127) disclose an enterprise evaluation device and an enterprise evaluation program capable of performing relative evaluation of profit-earning capacity of intellectual asset including such as patents, know-how, bland, and management efficiency in each enterprise under a condition not depending on the enterprise size or intellectual resource profit value.
Eder (US 2004/0215551) discloses an automated method and system (100) for defining, measuring and continuously monitoring the matrix of value and the matrix of risk for a multi-enterprise commercial organization.
Kataoka (US 2004/0186765) discloses a business profit improvement support system, which prompts a user to perform a market analysis evaluation of business and supports profit improvement of the business
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 October 18, 2025
Prosecution Insights