DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 3/9/2026.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended and claim 8 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
This application claims priority of Foreign Application JP2023-146902 filed on 9/11/2023. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged. Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. See below for reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-7 and 9-10, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims have been analyzed individually and as an ordered combination. Applicant’s claims are analyzing agreements between humans and making recommendations, which clearly is organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that analyzing and merging diagrams describes the analysis being performed and narrows the abstract idea. The Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. Applicant’s claims then are merely implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer (e.g. a computer having a processor and a memory), which merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 10 are directed toward a process and claims 1-7 and 9 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward an information processing device comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores a causal loop diagram database in which a plurality attributes of participants and causal loop diagrams that conform to the attributes are accumulated in association with each other, the causal loop diagrams visualizing causal relations between evaluation indicators and causal relation strength that represents strength of the causal relations, wherein the processor accesses the causal loop diagram database and classifies the plurality of participants into a plurality of classes on a basis of input information relating to attributes of the plurality of participants and generates class attributes indicating attributes of each of the plurality of classes, searches the causal loop diagram database on a basis of the class attributes of the plurality of classes to identify causal loop diagrams corresponding to the class attributes, wherein the causal loop diagrams identified each comprises a class causal loop diagram that is a causal loop diagram of each of the classes, generates a new class causal loop diagram by merging the causal loop diagrams identified, wherein merging the causal loop diagrams identified comprises calculating mutual similarities of the causal loop diagrams identified, and wherein the mutual similarities comprises a similarity score equal to or greater than a predetermined similarity threshold score, extracts a difference regarding the causal relations and the causal relation strength between a plurality of the class causal loop diagrams and generates difference information indicating the difference, identifies an issue to be discussed to form an agreement, on a basis of the difference information, and presents the issue to the participants (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing attributes of participants and comparing them to casual loop diagrams representing strengths between relations to determine differences and potential issues in agreement formation and presenting recommendation to aid in humans coming to an agreement, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “stores a causal loop diagram database (claims 1 and 10)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because storing data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the independent claims further recite “an information processing device, the information processing device comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores a causal loop diagram database; wherein the processor accesses the causal loop diagram database (claim 1);” “a computer having a processor and a memory; storing a casual loop diagram database; by the processor (claim 10)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7 and 9 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 3 additionally recite “stores a case database (claim 3)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claim 3 further recites “a case database (claim 3)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method; System Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “an information processing device, the information processing device comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores a causal loop diagram database; wherein the processor accesses the causal loop diagram database (claim 1);” “a computer having a processor and a memory; storing a casual loop diagram database; by the processor (claim 10)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0038-0039 and Figures 11. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “stores a causal loop diagram database (claims 1 and 10)” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-7 and 9 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 3 additionally recite “stores a case database (claim 3)”, which are additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “a case database (claim 3)”, which are additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1 and 10 disclose a system and method for analyzing casual loop diagrams to see relations between interactions by classifying participants based on attributes and merging casual loop diagrams by calculating similarities that are greater than or equal to a threshold to help humans come to an agreement.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Wang et al. (US 2021/0240174 A1) – which discloses monitoring situations and analyzing casual loop diagrams to make determinations.
Arai et al. (US 2020/0074468 A1) – which discloses analyzing agreements between humans and determining relationship maps.
Shao et al. (US 12,572,990 B2) – which discloses mapping relationships between interactions to determine potential risks and make recommendations.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 10, such as analyzing casual loop diagrams to see relations between interactions by classifying participants based on attributes and merging casual loop diagrams by calculating similarities that are greater than or equal to a threshold to help humans come to an agreement. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “an information processing device comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores a causal loop diagram database in which a plurality attributes of participants and causal loop diagrams that conform to the attributes are accumulated in association with each other, the causal loop diagrams visualizing causal relations between evaluation indicators and causal relation strength that represents strength of the causal relations, wherein the processor accesses the causal loop diagram database and classifies the plurality of participants into a plurality of classes on a basis of input information relating to attributes of the plurality of participants and generates class attributes indicating attributes of each of the plurality of classes, searches the causal loop diagram database on a basis of the class attributes of the plurality of classes to identify causal loop diagrams corresponding to the class attributes, wherein the causal loop diagrams identified each comprises a class causal loop diagram that is a causal loop diagram of each of the classes, generates a new class causal loop diagram by merging the causal loop diagrams identified, wherein merging the causal loop diagrams identified comprises calculating mutual similarities of the causal loop diagrams identified, and wherein the mutual similarities comprises a similarity score equal to or greater than a predetermined similarity threshold score, extracts a difference regarding the causal relations and the causal relation strength between a plurality of the class causal loop diagrams and generates difference information indicating the difference, identifies an issue to be discussed to form an agreement, on a basis of the difference information, and presents the issue to the participants (as required by independent claims 1 and 10)”, thus rendering claims 1, 10, and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights