DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to amendments filed on 6/17/2026. Claims 1-2 and 6-10 are currently pending and have been 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 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-2 and 6-10 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-2 and 6-10 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without a practical application and without providing significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are directed to a system (i.e., apparatus/machine); Claim 10 is directed to a method (i.e., process); accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04, Claims 1 and 10 recite specifically the abstract idea of information processing by start-to-completion achievement data which is selected from site data relating to a process including a plurality of tasks and in which a data item indicating a predetermined meaning is specified; meaning estimation target data selected from the site data; a feature amount of the data item of the start-to-completion achievement data indicating the predetermined meaning; and a feature amount of each data item included in the meaning estimation target data, and to: estimate a candidate of a data item indicating the predetermined meaning from the data items of the meaning estimation target data based on the feature amount of the data item of the start-to-completion achievement data indicating the predetermined meaning and the feature amount of each of the data item included in the meaning estimation target data; execute comparison processing of comparing the start-to-completion achievement data and the meaning estimation target data in a case in which the candidate is the data item indicating the predetermined meaning with each other; and estimate a data item indicating the predetermined meaning from the candidates based on a result of the comparison processing, wherein the data item indicating the predetermined meaning includes a tracking target identification item indicating information that identifies a tracking target in the process, a tracking location identification item indicating information that identifies a tracking location in the process, and a timing item indicating a timing at which the tracking target exists at the tracking location in the process, and wherein the processor is configured to: create, based on the tracking target identification item, the tracking location identification item, and the timing item of the start-to-completion achievement data, a process flow indicating information on passing of the tracking target through the tracking location; compare the meaning estimation target data in a case in which the candidate is the data item indicating the predetermined meaning and the process flow with each other in the comparison processing; calculate a conformity between the meaning estimation target data in the case in which the candidate is the data item indicating the predetermined meaning and the process flow in the comparison processing; estimate, as the data item indicating the predetermined meaning, a candidate determined to have a high calculated conformity based on a predetermined condition; and calculate the conformity based on an index indicating a degree of consistency of a combination of the tracking target identification item, the tracking location identification item, and the timing item indicated by the candidate in the meaning estimation target data with a combination of the tracking target identification item, the tracking location identification item, and the timing item of the start-to- completion achievement data; which include mental processes (i.e., evaluating and analyzing data regarding process including plurality of tasks for a judgement and opinion on estimating a data item indicating a predetermined meaning) and fundamental economic practice (managing a task based environment via processing the related information) and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions to estimate a data item indicating a predetermined meaning). Claims 2 and 6-9 are directed to performing the abstract idea of claim 1 with further details provided for the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05, while the claims 1-2 and 6-10 recite additional elements which are hardware or software elements, such as a processor and a memory, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.05, while the claims 1-2 and 6-10 recite additional elements which are hardware or software elements, such as a processor and a memory, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-2 and 6-10 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on rejections under 35 USC 101:
Applicants argued that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention recites the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., evaluating and analyzing data regarding process including plurality of tasks for a judgement and opinion on estimating a data item indicating a predetermined meaning) and fundamental economic practice (managing a task based environment via processing the related information) and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions to estimate a data item indicating a predetermined meaning).
Applicants also argued that the claimed invention provides practical application or significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While applicant’s claimed invention may have improvement in the abstract idea (such as algorithmic improvements of reducing the required number of calculations), it does not provide any improvement to computing technology. Further, applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of the Bascom Case/Decision.
Arguments on rejections under 35 USC 103:
Rejections under this section have been withdrawn. Closest prior art to the invention of these claims include:
Nogi et al (US 20200193354 A1) regarding sections of the art used in previous rejections;
Nogo et al (WO 2021124469 A1) regarding “[Abstract] The present invention makes it possible to infer the meaning of the content of data. A grouping unit 211 analyzes the relationship among a plurality of tables 223 and groups the plurality of tables 223. For each group, an inference unit (an ID meaning inference unit 212 and a table meaning inference unit 213) infers the meanings of tables 223 belonging to the group, using: table information that pertains to the tables 223 belonging to the group; and a dictionary (an ID meaning inference dictionary 227, a column dictionary 228, and a table meaning inference dictionary 229) that shows the correspondences between table information and meaning inference candidates.”;
Oikawa et al (US 20060112371 A1) regarding “[0020] Automatically extending the time of completion of a task may be done in any suitable way. An example process for automatically extending the time of completion of a task is shown in FIG. 7. The process begins at act 701 wherein information items are requested. Thus, when a project schedule is created, one or more information items may be requested for a task in the project schedule. An information item for a task is any piece of information pertaining to the task. Examples of information items include, but are not limited to, information relating to the end work product of the task, information relating to quality targets for the task, information specifying who is the owner of the task, information pertaining to which developers are assigned to the task, information specifying inputs and outputs for the task, and/or any other suitable information item. Additionally, any information item that serves as a quality metric for the task may be used”;
谷崎 直昭 (US 20060112371 A1) regarding “On the other hand, the started estimate management CGI 15 sends an estimate request for the industry assigned in the target industry link candidate for the top business of the industry link candidate entrusted with the estimate management, and an intermediary data record corresponding to the industry link candidate It is created based on “ordered item”, “ordering condition” and “ordering specification” in 190. Here, for the trader D in the first candidate industry link candidate, the “ordered item” is a mold drawing that is a product in the industry = die design, and the “number” is “1” because of the attribute of the product… the business mediation server 14 starts the estimate confirmation information screen (FIG. 80) from the dedicated area of the ordering company in the HTML storage area 30. And an estimate confirmation information screen is displayed on the display 22 of the client computer 2 of the orderer (S040). In the estimate confirmation information list box 49 of this estimate confirmation information screen, green indicating the completion of the estimate in the mediation ID = 000005 of the mediation data record 190 to which the industry link candidate for which the estimate management has ended (estimation results were obtained) belongs.”;
FUKUSHIGE et al (JP 2004362140 A) “Claim 4. The browsing target is selected by correcting the date and time information according to a time difference between a browsing place where the monitoring status is browsed and an execution place where the job is executed.”
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights