DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 18 August 2026 (hereinafter “Reply”). This action is made Final.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 12-13 are currently amended.
Claims 7-8 have been canceled.
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are pending.
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 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 may be characterized as a process for generating a flow rate diagram. This claim has been evaluated under the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test as provided in MPEP § 2106.
I. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea.
Courts have defined a mental process to include both concepts that may be performed entirely in the human mind and concepts that require a human to employ a physical aid (e.g., a pen and paper or slide rule). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Id.
The following limitations encompass a mental process:
“displaying a flow rate diagram indicating a relationship between a keyword and related information related to the keyword by connecting the keyword and the related information with a band, wherein the width of the band increases as the relationship becomes stronger;”
“us[ing] the related information as an input for a new keyword, infer[ing] information relating to the new keyword and belonging to the new information type as new related information, calculat[ing] new relatedness being relatedness between the new keyword and the new related information, and connect[ing] the new keyword and the new related information related to the new keyword with a band to generate new display data for displaying a new flow rate diagram indicating a relationship between the new keyword and the new related information;” and
“wherein the width of the band connecting the new keyword and the new related information increases as the new relatedness increases, thereby allowing more related information corresponding to the new related information to be retrieved without restarting an initial search for the related information.”
The above limitation is drawn to creating and updating a flow rate diagram. This activity may be performed by a human with, for example, the aid of pens and paper.
II. Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Integration into a practical application should be determined by: “(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the [listed] considerations.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) (emphasis added).
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“a processor to execute a program;”
“a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs a process of, generating display data;”
“wherein the processor further acquires a new information type after the display data is generated.”
A. The invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Neither the claim nor the specification asserts that the invention improves upon the conventional functioning of a computer, conventional technology, or technological processes. Rather, the claim merely invokes a computer as a tool.
B. The recited display device is not a particular machine.
A general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). The claim recites the additional elements of performing the claimed process using a processor and a memory. These are generic computer technologies. Accordingly, the recited abstract idea is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
C. Acquiring new information is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The recitation of an insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim recites the additional element of acquiring a new information type after the display data is generated. Acquiring information is an insignificant pre-solution activity related to mere data gathering.
D. The relevant considerations indicate that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When evaluated as a whole, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
III. Step 2B: The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Whether a claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea should be determined by: (1) identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, with respect to the relevant considerations. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
First, as discussed above, the recited graphical user interface/invention does not improve the functioning of a computer. Second, as discussed above, the recited display device comprises generic computer technologies. Thus, individually, the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Finally, the combined additional elements do not result in a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. Rather, the combined additional elements merely embody conventional data processing and data output functions performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, when evaluated individually and in combination, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
IV. Conclusion: Ineligible
The claim has been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, is directed to calculating relatedness between a keyword and related information and correlating the width of the band with relatedness. Calculating relatedness is a mathematical concept and mental process. See Specification 10-12. The generation of a flow rate diagram with a given band width encompasses a mental process. The claim also recites storing a knowledge graph. Storing and retrieving information in memory is a generic computer technology and is well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, is directed to generating a Sankey diagram. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4, which depends on claim 3, is directed to generating a Sankey diagram with a width of a band normalized on the basis of a width of a keyword. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. See Specification 12-13. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5, which depends on claim 2, is directed to inferring information related to a keyword and belonging to an information type. This activity encompasses a mental process. The claim also recites a processor acquiring the keyword and the information type. This function is merely insignificant pre-solution activity related to data gathering. Courts have recognized that receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6, which depends on claim 2, is directed to extracting a keyword from text and inferring information related to the keyword and belonging to an information type. These activities encompass mental processes. The claim also recites a processor acquiring the text and the information type. This function is merely insignificant pre-solution activity related to data gathering. Courts have recognized that receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9, which depends on claim 2, is directed to inferring a document from a plurality of document and inferring related information from a knowledge graph. These are mental process. The claim also recites a processor acquiring the keyword and the information type. This function is merely insignificant pre-solution activity related to data gathering. Courts have recognized that receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The claim also recites storing text information. Storing and retrieving information in memory is a generic computer technology and is well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10, which depends on claim 5, is directed to a processor acquiring detailed information. This function is merely insignificant pre-solution activity related to data gathering. Courts have recognized that receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 11, which depends on claim 10, is directed to filtering related information with detailed information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is directed to a program stored in a medium that causes a computer to execute the process recited in claim 1. The medium claim is no different than the corresponding device claim in substance. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014).
Claim 13 is directed to a method of performing the process recited in claim 1. The method claim is no different than the corresponding device claim in substance. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite “an improvement to the technical field, which enables a more efficient retrieval and display of more related information (i.e., new related information) without restarting the search.” Reply 9.
Concerning, enabling the “display of more related information,” the display of information as party of a flow rate diagram has been found to be an abstract idea. An abstract idea alone cannot provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Concerning, enabling “a more efficient retrieval,” it is unclear how the claims recite a more efficient system of retrieval. The claims do not positively recite retrieval of information. The phrase “thereby allowing more related information corresponding to the new related information to be retrieved without restarting an initial search for the related information” is merely an intended use or result and has been afforded no limiting effect.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Agnew et al., US 10,861,202 B1 discloses generating Sankey diagrams with a variable band width.
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 Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights