CTNF 19/054,496 CTNF 85593 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Introduction The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on February 14, 2025. Currently claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1, 5 and 9 are independent. Priority Applicant claims the priority of a Foreign application No. JP 2024-021889, filed on February 16, 2024 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2025 appears to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been entered into record. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-4 are directed to an information processing device comprising one or more processors, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 5-8 are directed to an information processing method for performing work support process, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 9-12 are directed to a system comprising an information processing device includes one or more processors, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019). In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Taking the method claims as representative. Claim 5 recite limitations of “acquiring execution history information of a workflow, determining an item for which work support is to be perform based on execution history information, performing a work support process for the item”; the dependent claims further narrowing the limitations of claim 1 including “determining the item for which work support is to be performed based on an error rate, determining the item for which work support is to be performed based on a difference between an input time and an average input time, acquiring an experience value of a user, and performing the work support process.”. None of the claim limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broade3st reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually acquiring execution history information and a user experience value, determining which items to be performed, and determining the difference between an input time and an average input time in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors” do not take the claims out of the “mental processes” grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two. In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “one or more processors”. The Specification describes that “the one or more processor, for example, the processing circuit acquires the execution history information associated with the user identification information of the worker from the execution history information storage area. The processing circuit acquires work history information of all users who having rights to access a target workflow” (see ¶ 77). The one or more processors, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, manipulating, and transmitting data over a network. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.) , 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, or reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B. In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id . (alternation in original) ( quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)). The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “one or more processors”. The Specification describes that “the one or more processor, for example, the processing circuit acquires the execution history information associated with the user identification information of the worker from the execution history information storage area. The processing circuit acquires work history information of all users who having rights to access a target workflow” (see ¶ 77). The one or more processors, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, manipulating, and transmitting data over a network. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the processors, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including acquiring (receiving) information from storage/database. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)). For the foregoing reasons, claims 5-8 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims device claim 1-4 and system claim 9-12 parallel claims 5-8—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101. Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al., (CN 117931408, hereinafter: Liang), and in view of Kodama et al., (WO 2005009101, hereinafter: Kodama) . Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses the an information processing device comprising one or more processors (see pg. 23, ¶ 16 to pg. 24, ¶ 1) to: acquire execution history information of a workflow (see Abstract; pg. 2, ¶ 4; pg. 4, ¶ 10; pg. 23, ¶ 14); and perform a work support process for the item (see pg. 3, ¶ 9, pg. 4, ¶ 4; pg. 10, ¶ 7). Liang discloses based on the history execution information, determining a workflow not exceeding the cluster available resource as the workflow to be scheduled (see pg. 4, ¶ 10). Liang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kodama in an analogous art or support work management discloses determine an item for which work support is to be performed based on the execution history information (see ¶ 5-8, ¶ 11-12, ¶ 15-17, ¶ 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang to include teaching of Kodama in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 2, Liang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Kodama discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors determine the item for which work support is to be performed based on an error rate (see pg. 13, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang to include teaching of Kodama in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 4, Liang discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors acquire an experience value of a user, and perform the work support process based on the experience value (see pg. 2, ¶ 1; pg. 6, ¶ 5; pg. 17, ¶ 4). Regarding claim 5, Liang discloses an information processing method comprising: acquiring, by one or more processors, execution history information of a workflow (see Abstract; pg. 2, ¶ 4; pg. 4, ¶ 10; pg. 23, ¶ 14); and performing, by the one or more processors, a work support process for the item (see pg. 3, ¶ 9, pg. 4, ¶ 4; pg. 10, ¶ 7). Liang discloses based on the history execution information, determining a workflow not exceeding the cluster available resource as the workflow to be scheduled (see pg. 4, ¶ 10). Liang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kodama discloses determining, by the one or more processors, an item for which work support is to be performed based on the execution history information (see ¶ 5-8, ¶ 11-12, ¶ 15-17, ¶ 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang to include teaching of Kodama in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 6, Liang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Kodama discloses the information processing method according to claim 5, comprising determining, by the one or more processors, the item for which work support is to be performed based on an error rate (see pg. 13, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang to include teaching of Kodama in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 8, Liang discloses the information processing method according to claim 5, comprising: acquiring, by the one or more processors, an experience value of a user (see pg. 2, ¶ 1), and performing, by the one or more processors, the work support process based on the experience value (see pg. 6, ¶ 5; pg. 17, ¶ 4). Regarding claim 9, Liang discloses an information processing system comprising: an information processing terminal (see pg. 5, ¶ 12); and an information processing device, wherein the information processing device includes one or more processors (see pg. 23, ¶ 16) to: acquire execution history information of a workflow (see Abstract; pg. 2, ¶ 4; pg. 4, ¶ 10; pg. 23, ¶ 14); and perform a work support process for the item in the information processing terminal (see pg. 3, ¶ 9, pg. 4, ¶ 4; pg. 10, ¶ 7). Liang discloses based on the history execution information, determining a workflow not exceeding the cluster available resource as the workflow to be scheduled (see pg. 4, ¶ 10). Liang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kodama discloses determine an item for which work support is to be performed based on the execution history information (see ¶ 5-8, ¶ 11-12, ¶ 15-17, ¶ 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang to include teaching of Kodama in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 10, Liang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Kodama discloses the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the one or more processors determine the item for which work support is to be performed based on an error rate (see pg. 13, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang to include teaching of Kodama in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 12, Liang discloses the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the one or more processors acquire an experience value of a user (see pg. 2, ¶ 1), and perform the work support process based on the experience value (see pg. 6, ¶ 5; pg. 17, ¶ 4) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang and in view of Kodama as applied to claim s 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 and 12 above, and further in view of Miyauchi et al., (JP 2014115478, hereinafter: Miyauchi) . Regarding claim 3, Liang and Kodama do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Miyauchi in an analogous art for enhancing user satisfaction discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors determine the item for which work support is to be performed based on a difference between an input time and an average input time (see pg. 14, ¶ 5; pg. 15, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang and in view of Kodama to include teaching of Miyauchi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 7, Liang and Kodama do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Miyauchi discloses the information processing method according to claim 5, comprising determining, by the one or more processors, the item for which work support is to be performed based on a difference between an input time and an average input time (see pg. 14, ¶ 5; pg. 15, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang and in view of Kodama to include teaching of Miyauchi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 11, Liang and Kodama do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Miyauchi discloses the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the one or more processors determine the item for which work support is to be performed based on a difference between an input time and an average input time (see pg. 14, ¶ 5; pg. 15, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Liang and in view of Kodama to include teaching of Miyauchi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morikawa (JP 2010073119) disclose a method for managing job support based on contact history information obtained through processing in the center work support system. Kobayashi et al., (US 2020/0012264) discloses a device for managing a board work line having multiple board work of an operator who performs support work when support work needs to be performed. Ishida et al., (US 2023/0361825) discloses a work support method for estimating a state of each of the plural workers and determining whether or not intervention in the shared work by the work support apparatus. Hori et al., (JP 2005085190) discloses a system for work support to reduce a load of a worker by automatically creating a work history or a work journal. Xu et al., “Workflow Support based on Mobile Data Stream Management System”, Graduate School of Applied Information, University of Hyogo, Japan, 2016 Fourth International Symposium on Computing and Networking. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule. 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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. /PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 2 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 3 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 4 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 5 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 6 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 7 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 8 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 9 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 10 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 11 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 12 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 13 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/054,496 Page 14 Art Unit: 3624
Prosecution Insights