DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 7 recite the limitations for an input of a document that describes a business process including a plurality of procedures is received (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis of a business, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity),an expression related to the business process is extracted from the document as an entity (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis of a business, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity),a category of the entity is classified (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis of a business, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), a plurality of entity groups each including one or more of the entities and corresponding to one of the procedures are generated (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis of a business, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), for each of the entity groups, a main entity that is the entity, which characterizes the procedure corresponding to the entity group, is specified based on a category of one or more of the entities included in the entity group (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis of a business, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), first order determination processing of determining an order of the plurality of procedures based on a relationship between the main entities is executed (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis of a business, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), an order of the plurality of procedures is determined based on a result of the first order determination processing (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis of a business, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and information related to the ordered entity groups is generated and outputted as structured data of the business process (Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis of a business, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of outputting information related to ordered entity groups, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer system and a computer, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Fundamental Economic Process. For example, receiving a document input, extracting information from the document, and classifying a category of the entity based on this encompasses a supervisor, manager, data analyst, etc. reading a document and deciding what information would be useful to categorize an entity, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Fundamental Economic Process, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computer system and computer are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the collecting and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these 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. The claim 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, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0019] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of a first system according to Embodiment 1. FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of a hardware structure of a computer 200 according to Embodiment 1. [0020] A system 10 shown in FIG. 1 includes a structuring processing device 100 and a user terminal 101. ”
Which shows that any generic computer using a processor/processing device and user terminal can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the collecting and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the computer system, computer, etc., nor the collecting and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovic (U.S. Publication No. 2016/009,2475) in view of Tsunoda (U.S. Publication No. 2023/022,1987).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Stojanovic, a system and method for automated entity correlation and classification across heterogeneous datasets, teaches a computer system comprising: at least one computer ([0205] computers coupled to a computer system), wherein
an input of a document that describes a business process including a plurality of procedures is received ([0060 extract information from documents for [0182] the management of business processes)
an expression related to the business process is extracted from the document as an entity ([0073-74] the extracted information is an expressions which is related to the [0182] business process),
a category of the entity is classified ([0095-97] categorization of the words/entities)
a plurality of entity groups each including one or more of the entities and corresponding to one of the procedures are generated,
for each of the entity groups, a main entity that is the entity, which characterizes the procedure corresponding to the entity group, is specified based on a category of one or more of the entities included in the entity group ([0098-99] words are grouped into categories with characteristics such as semantic similarity)
first order determination processing of determining an order of the plurality of procedures based on a relationship between the main entities is executed ([0167] and [0105] knowledge/category groups
information related to the ordered entity groups is generated and outputted as structured data of the business process ([0203] structured data is sent which changes the order and displays the business processes and categories as in [0099])
Although Stojanovic teaches an order of the plurality of procedures is determined based on a result of the first order determination processing ([0182-183] and order is determined due to the processing above which determines an order for business processes), it does not explicitly state an order of the group of procedures.
Tsunoda, a method and medium for storing control programs and information processing, teaches [0084] business procedures for business flow with a specific order of steps.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the order determination of processes of Stojanovic with the ordering of business processes for execution of Tsunoda as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to extraction and using of document information, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase and improve the efficiency of the business along with increased productivity as taught in [0030] of Tsunoda.
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Stojanovic teaches wherein parallelism determination processing of specifying the procedures to be executed in parallel based on a relationship between the main entities is executed ([0067] the processes are transformed, such as the extraction and the identification of procedures as in Claim 1 above), and
an order of the plurality of procedures is determined based on the result of the first order determination processing and a result of the parallelism determination processing ([0182] an order of the business processes are determined in [0167] parallel)
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Stojanovic teaches wherein
in the first order determination processing, an order between two of the procedures is determined based on at least one of a character string included in a sentence connecting the main entities and similarity between the main entities ([0097-99] determination is done due to similarity between words/entities/processes), and
in the parallelism determination processing (As in Claim 2 above), the procedures to be executed in parallel are specified based on the character string included in the sentence connecting the main entities (Table 1 [0073] and [0090] strings are used in sentences to extract time stamp and split values which are done in parallel as above)
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Stojanovic teaches wherein
for each of the entity groups, a category of the procedure corresponding to the entity group is classified based on a category of one or more of the entities included in the entity group ([0105] entity/knowledge groups are created with the categories),
second order determination processing of determining an order of the plurality of procedures based on an order of the procedures and a relationship between categories of the procedures is executed ([0097-99] determination is done due to similarity between words/entities/processes), and
an order of the plurality of procedures is determined based on the first order determination processing and the second order determination processing ([0097-99] determination is done of an order due to similarity between words/entities/processes).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Stojanovic teaches wherein
the computer system stores information for managing a rule that defines an appearance order of the categories of the procedures in the business process ([0203] structured data is sented which changes the order and displays the business processes and categories as in [0099])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and all other rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250356220 A1
Tian; Gang
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCED MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES FOR KNOWLEDGE MAP GENERATION AND USER INTERFACE PRESENTATION
US 20230297549 A1
Riggs; Rory et al.
Predictive Search and Navigation for Functional Information Systems
US 20230221987 A1
TSUNODA; Tadanobu et al.
CONTROL METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE
US 20230054624 A1
Rout; Swapna Sourav et al.
DYNAMIC DETECTION OF CROSS-DOCUMENT ASSOCIATIONS
US 20160092475 A1
Stojanovic; Alexander Sasha et al.
AUTOMATED ENTITY CORRELATION AND CLASSIFICATION ACROSS HETEROGENEOUS DATASETS
US 20240265114 A1
Lambotte; Tom
AN APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING CYBERSECURITY OF AN ENTITY
US 20240210181 A1
Batten, JR.; Wise Henry
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COMPLETING ENTITY ACTIONS USING A COMPUTING DEVICE
US 20220365972 A1
Urabe; Yuki et al.
CLASSIFICATION DEVICE, CLASSIFICATION METHOD, AND CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM
US 20220215174 A1
Galitsky; Boris
RELYING ON DISCOURSE TREES TO BUILD ONTOLOGIES
US 20170220603 A1
Riggs; Rory et al.
PROXIMITY SEARCH AND NAVIGATION FOR FUNCTIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
US 20170091289 A1
OHAZULIKE; Anthony Emeka et al.
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR EXECUTING AN AUTOMATED ANALYSIS OF DATA, IN PARTICULAR SOCIAL MEDIA DATA, FOR PRODUCT FAILURE DETECTION
US 20160224918 A1
ARAKI; Masataka et al.
BUSINESS INFLUENCED PART EXTRACTION METHOD AND BUSINESS INFLUENCED PART EXTRACTION DEVICE BASED ON BUSINESS VARIATION
US 20150331936 A1
ALQADAH; Faris
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EXTRACTING A PRODUCT AND CLASSIFYING TEXT-BASED ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM 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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 3/9/2026