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 .
Acknowledgements
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed December 4, 2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-15 are examined below.
Based on a comparison of the PGPub US 2025/0200518 A1 with applicant’s originally submitted specification, the PGPub appears to be a fair and accurate record of the applicant’s specification. Therefore, references to applicant’s specification will typically be made by this examiner as references to the PGPub. Unless otherwise noted, references to applicant’s specification as published via PGPub will be in the format [####], and references to applicant’s specification as filed will be in the format ¶## or by page and line number.
The notations in the immediately preceding paragraph apply to any future office actions from this examiner.
Examiner Request
Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. Examiner thanks applicant in advance. See also relevant portions of MPEP 2163.II.A:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Priority
Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The attached information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, requires the specification to be written in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms." The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms or phrases used in the specification are: “The business process management device identifies an insufficient work based on current work information and new work information” (Abstract) and “Management of a business process is performed for an object of achieving target and improving efficiency of an organization through automation of a process and effective use of information by using a computer” ([0002]). Note that these are examples and that correction of these examples alone will be insufficient to overcome this objection.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-15, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites storing business process data, acquiring business process data, identifying a similar business process, and reusing portions of the similar business process, which constitutes a certain method of organizing human activity (specifically, a fundamental economic principle or practice, or commercial or legal interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) or mental process or mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements beyond the abstract idea simply link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computers). Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements identified above represent only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology (or placeholders for such) when compared with the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Viewing the additional elements as a combination does not add anything further than the individual elements. Therefore, the additional elements in the claim are not sufficient to amount to an inventive concept. Because claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and fails to recite an inventive concept, it is patent ineligible.
Independent claim 15 contains limitations similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional limitations added by these claims fail to either integrate the claims into a practical application or add an inventive concept, because they serve to further narrow the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application. Viewing the additional elements of the dependent claims as a combination does not add anything further than the individual elements. Therefore, the dependent claims neither practically integrate the abstract idea nor constitute an inventive concept, and these claims are also rejected as patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform to current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. See below for examples of errors in the claims.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation “the information processing device acquires current business process data, which includes current business process work information related to a current business process and a work forming the current business process and data related to the current business process, and new business process work information related to a new business process and a work forming the new business process, or project environment provision value information indicating a project environment and a provision value” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear what is or is not required by this recitation. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting this to mean that the device acquires business process information.
Claim 15 contains language similar to the recitation in claim 1 discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claim 15 is rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation “the information processing device … performs, based on the current business process work information and the new business process work information or the project environment provision value information, similar business process candidate identification of identifying, from the accumulated business process data group, one or more similar business process candidates which are the business process where the current business process and the new business process or the project environment provision value information match the project environment” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This recitation does not make sense, grammatically. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting this to mean identifying a similar business process.
Claim 15 contains language similar to the recitation in claim 1 discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claim15 is rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation “reuse target similar business process selection of selecting a reuse target similar business process from the identified one or more similar business process candidates, and reuse target work identification of identifying, in a work unit, at least a part of works of the selected reuse target similar business process as a reuse target” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear what this recitation requires. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting this to require identifying portions of the identified business process that can be reused.
Claim 15 contains language similar to the recitation in claim 1 discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claim 15 is rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, applicant’s recitation “an accumulated business process data group” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. First, the examiner has carefully reviewed the specification and was unable to locate a lexicographic definition for this term. Although applicant provides some information regarding “an accumulated business process data group” such as that it might include “business process information for describing a content of the business process, work information for describing a content of a work forming the business process, and data related to the business process” ([0009]), this fails to provide the clarity, deliberateness, and precision required for a lexicographic definition. Second, the examiner has again reviewed all documents of record in accordance with MPEP § 2141.03 and was unable to locate a definition for this term. Based upon the reviews of the specification and the documents of record, it is the examiner’s position that the term “an accumulated business process data group” (as used in the context of these particular claims) is not known to those of ordinary skill in this art.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, applicant’s recitation “work information” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. First, the examiner has carefully reviewed the specification and was unable to locate a lexicographic definition for this term. Although applicant provides some information regarding “work information” such as that it might be “for describing a content of a work forming [a] business process” (claim 1), this fails to provide the clarity, deliberateness, and precision required for a lexicographic definition. Second, the examiner has again reviewed all documents of record in accordance with MPEP § 2141.03 and was unable to locate a definition for this term. Based upon the reviews of the specification and the documents of record, it is the examiner’s position that the term “work information” (as used in the context of these particular claims) is not known to those of ordinary skill in this art.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, applicant’s recitation “a content of a work” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. First, the examiner has carefully reviewed the specification and was unable to locate a lexicographic definition for this term. Although applicant provides some information regarding “a content of a work” such as that it might form a business process (claim 1), this fails to provide the clarity, deliberateness, and precision required for a lexicographic definition. Second, the examiner has again reviewed all documents of record in accordance with MPEP § 2141.03 and was unable to locate a definition for this term. Based upon the reviews of the specification and the documents of record, it is the examiner’s position that the term “a content of a work” (as used in the context of these particular claims) is not known to those of ordinary skill in this art.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, applicant’s recitation “project environment provision value information” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. First, the examiner has carefully reviewed the specification and was unable to locate a lexicographic definition for this term. Second, the examiner has again reviewed all documents of record in accordance with MPEP § 2141.03 and was unable to locate a definition for this term. Based upon the reviews of the specification and the documents of record, it is the examiner’s position that the term “project environment provision value information” (as used in the context of these particular claims) is not known to those of ordinary skill in this art.
Prior Art
As noted more specifically above, the claims are indefinite such that the metes and bounds cannot be ascertained without undue conjecture and speculation as to what applicant intends to claim; as such, prior art examination of the claims is precluded. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (Noting that art based rejection is not proper when there is considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.)
In the effort to advance prosecution, examiner has conducted a general search of prior art that may be relevant to the subject matter of the application. The prior art made of record and not relied upon can be found on the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE KUCAB whose telephone number is (571)270-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. The examiner’s email address is Jamie.Kucab@USPTO.gov. See MPEP 502.03 regarding email communications. Following is the sample authorization for electronic communication provided in MPEP 502.03.II: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Without such an authorization in place, an examiner is unable to respond via email.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-1492. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699