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 .
Status of Claims
This office action for the 19/038743 application is in response to the communications filed April 30, 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10 and 17 were amended April 30, 2026.
Claims 3-6, 11-16, and 18-20 were cancelled April 30, 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 17 are currently pending and considered below.
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, 2, 7-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a manufacture.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of acquiring a policy model which has a flow structure constituted by nodes and edges, and in which a behavior selection model that indicates which behavior a person selects for the policy is associated with an intermediate node of the flow structure, and a service to be provided to the person is associated with an intermediate node or a terminal node of the flow structure; acquiring data related to persons to be analyzed; identifying a flow of the persons in a flow graph of a policy that includes a plurality of options by using a behavior selection model that indicates which behavior a respective person selects for the policy, the identifying includes identifying a route to a terminal node by tracing nodes and edges of the flow structure based on the behavior selection model when the acquired data related to the persons to be analyzed is input to the acquired policy model; generating information that indicates a prediction result of the policy based on the identified flow of the persons, the generating of the information is performed such that a number of persons flowing in the identified route and the service to be provided to the persons are associated with each other in the generated information; and the identifying includes: inputting the acquired data related to the persons to a first policy model that is the policy model before the policy is executed and obtaining a first prediction result in which a number of persons flowing through a respective node in a flow graph based on the behavior selection model when the acquired data related to the persons is input to the first policy model before the policy is executed, and inputting the acquired data related to the persons to a second policy model that is the policy model after the policy is executed and obtaining a second prediction result in which a number of persons flowing through a respective node in the flow graph based on the behavior selection model when the acquired data related to the persons is input to the second policy model after the policy is executed, the generating includes: generating a first image that indicates the first prediction result such that an edge between a respective couple of nodes in the flow graph is made thick as the number of persons flowing through the edge increase in the first prediction result, and generating a second image that indicates the second prediction result such that an edge between a respective couple of nodes in the flow graph is made thick as the number of persons flowing through the edge increase in the second prediction result. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information output program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraphs [0137]-[0141] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amount to nothing more than generic computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“outputting the generated information to a display screen,” and “the outputting includes displaying, on the display screen, the first image and the second image in association with each other.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“outputting the generated information to a display screen,” and “the outputting includes displaying, on the display screen, the first image and the second image in association with each other.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“the identifying includes identifying, when the acquired data related to the persons is input to each policy model of the first and second policy models, a respective route to a terminal node through nodes and edges in the flow graph by using the behavior selection model, and the generating of the first and second images are performed based on the identified respective route” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the processing further comprising:” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“identifying the behavior selection model that corresponds to a policy under consideration,” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the processing further comprising” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“storing an identified behavior selection model in association with an intermediate node of a second policy model after the policy is executed.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“storing an identified behavior selection model in association with an intermediate node of a second policy model after the policy is executed.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“storing an identified behavior selection model in association with an intermediate node of a second policy model after the policy is executed.” which corresponds to storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“generating a …twin in which a real space is reproduced in a … space, executing, in the … twin that has been generated, a simulation of a flow of persons in a route that includes the plurality of options by using the behavior selection model, and generating information that indicates a prediction result of the policy based on a result of an executed simulation.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the processing further comprising”, “digital” and “virtual” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“the generating of a … twin generates, in the … space, a … twin that is time-synchronized with the real space, the executing of a simulation executes, by using attribute information of each of a plurality of agents that corresponds to each of a plurality of persons and the behavior selection model associated with a conditional branch of a policy model, in the … twin, a simulation of whether each of the plurality of persons takes a behavior for the policy, so as to identify a route to which each of the plurality of persons is allocated in an option of the conditional branch, and the generating generates information that indicates a prediction result of the policy that includes an identified route to which each of the plurality of identified persons is allocated.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“digital” and “virtual” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 17 contain subject matter that is free of prior art. The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine to teach the limitation of “the identifying includes: inputting the acquired data related to the persons to a first policy model that is the policy model before the policy is executed and obtaining a first prediction result in which a number of persons flowing through a respective node in a flow graph based on the behavior selection model when the acquired data related to the persons is input to the first policy model before the policy is executed, and inputting the acquired data related to the persons to a second policy model that is the policy model after the policy is executed and obtaining a second prediction result in which a number of persons flowing through a respective node in the flow graph based on the behavior selection model when the acquired data related to the persons is input to the second policy model after the policy is executed” and “the generating includes: generating a first image that indicates the first prediction result such that an edge between a respective couple of nodes in the flow graph is made thick as the number of persons flowing through the edge increase in the first prediction result, and generating a second image that indicates the second prediction result such that an edge between a respective couple of nodes in the flow graph is made thick as the number of persons flowing through the edge increase in the second prediction result, and the outputting includes displaying, on the display screen, the first image and the second image in association with each other.”. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find to teach this limitation was:
Josephson et al. (US 2023/0017672) which teaches the display of a knowledge graph in Figure 2B which bolds the path of information taken by an inference engine which was used to determine specific users who performed research for particular medical treatments. See paragraph [0091] of Josephson et al.
Dimitrova et al. (US 2023/0274809) which teaches a medial workflow generation interface that displays a flow chart of how medical decisions are made. See Figure 4 and paragraphs [0123]-[0128] of Dimitrova et al.
It can be seen that while the feature of augmenting a flow or knowledge graph with a thickening of edges is the only similarity between the prior art and the claimed invention. This visual augmentation was not in any way due to a number of identified persons and there is no basis to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention prior to the filing date simply by reviewing this prior art. Further, it can be seen that a mere workflow generation UI does not read on this limitation. Not only is there number of persons indicating where they are moving in the proposed workflow, there is also not a plurality of flow charts being displayed in the same output. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 17 contain subject matter free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the pending claims do note recite activities falling within the enumerated examples of “managing personal behavior”. The claimed limitations go beyond a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow because the claimed invention provides a technical method of predicting and visualizing the impact of policy changes based on displaying information from complex quantitative data. This fundamentally provides a technical solution to a technical problem in policy evaluation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no evidence that “policy evaluation” is in any way technical. The field may involve technology, but fundamentally policy evaluation is a business field, not a technical one. The Applicant has failed to identify the technical problem attempted to be solved. Furthermore, the recitation of elements that are not part of the abstract idea, such as the display of information, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The steps of the abstract idea are more than capable of being performed by a human in the course of their personal behavior even with the “complex quantitative data”.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims do not recite limitations that are performable in the human mind.
The Examiner finds this argument to be irrelevant. The basis of rejection is not mental processes, but rather certain methods of organizing human activity. The Applicant has argued against a position that the Examiner has not asserted.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims provide an improvement to technology, thereby integrating and judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the way in which data is being presented is found to be unconventional. This unconventional display provides a comparative analysis that is more coherent, easily digestible and allows for direct evaluation of policy changes.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unconventionality in an abstract idea is not particularly relevant in this discussion. An unconventional or novel abstract idea is still in abstract idea. The Applicant has merely identified what data is being displayed in the images it generates. The claim is silent with how the data is being displayed beyond generic display techniques. Thickening of a line for example, may be unconventional or novel, but this defines what data is being displayed. It is akin to a human drawing a thicker line on paper as they generate an image. The Applicant has not presented any evidence in an improvement of how information is being displayed. The claim merely states that a generated image or images is being displayed. Further, the element of displaying comparative images before and after execution merely identifies what data is being presented as opposed to how the data is being displayed beyond that which is well-understood, routine and conventional.
The Applicant further argues that claim 1 provides a novel and specific technical solution for visualizing and comparing policy effects, directly enhancing the utility of results for planning.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The field of policy planning is not a technical field, but rather a business field. The claimed invention merely takes a novel process that is ultimately abstract and displays results of that abstract process by conventional means, i.e. a display.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims provide something significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, the claimed invention addresses a technical problem with policy planning, provides a novel analytical framework, provides a non-generic understandable visual cue, and displays information for efficient comparative analysis.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of these elements are relevant for providing something significantly more than the abstract idea. There is no evidence of a specific technical problem with policy planning as the field is a business field and the Applicant has failed to specifically identify the technical problem, novelty is not a relevant factor for determining subject matter eligibility, and non-generic visual cues along with displaying a comparative analysis amount to what kind of information is being displayed as opposed to how. Without understanding or defining the how of the invention, there is no basis to conclude that display technology is being improved.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 are persuasive for the reasons indicated above.
Conclusion
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 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 CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (EST).
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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights