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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 06/30/2026
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 have been amended. Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) rejection and 35 U.S.C. subject matter eligibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues, “…it is not an abstract idea expressed at a high level of generality, nor a generic computer simply automating a pre-existing mental process.” (pg. 8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims encompass abstract concepts related to Certain Methods of Organizing Activity related to managing personal behavior (or relationships including following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a computer and crm). For example, receiving a first management policy, cross-hierarchically analyzing the first management policy using reinforcement learning, generating a first on-site policy involve managing personal behavior, relationships and providing instruction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data based on receiving management policy data, cross-hierarchially analyzing data using machine learning and generating a policy (collecting and analyzing data). The use of machine learning to analyze data is generically recited in an apply it manner. These steps could reasonably be performed in the human mind or with pen/paper.
Further Based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” The generic computer components are merely automating the limitations.
Applicant argues, “The Claims Are Directed to a Practical Application, Not an Abstract Idea…Amended claim 1 is directed to a specific technological solution to a specific technical problem…” (pgs. 8-9)
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a memory, a processor and computer-readable recording medium and a computer. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Figure 2 and ¶0122). The claims additionally recite the additional element of reinforcement learning.
For instance, the steps of receiving a first management policy from a person in charge, cross-hierarchically analyzing the first management policy received from each hierarchical layer and generating a first on-site policy using a reinforcement learning is collecting and analyzing data using complex mathematics. Examiner notes that the use of reinforcement learning is interpreted in an ‘apply it’ manner to analyze data. The step of notifying each onsite person in charge of a hierarchical layer is generic data transmission.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a computer, crm). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a computer, crm). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argures similar to SIR International, “Amended claim 1 is directed to a specific technological solution to a specific technical problem…” (pgs. 8-10)
In SIR International the courts found the claims patent-eligible because they were focused on a specific technological solution—using network monitors to analyze specific data types and detect suspicious network behavior—rather than an abstract business practice.
Unlike SIR International the instant claims recite generic computer components performing generic computer functions such as receiving a management policy, cross-hierarchically analyzing the received management policy and onsite data and generating a first on-site policy. This is reflective of abstract concepts (collecting and analyzing data).
The claimed limitations are not directed to a technical solution. The disclosed invention appears to be related to an improved business process for managing policy data through various hierarchical layers of an organization. Further, there is no support in the claims or Specification of an improvement in a technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues, “ Even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims recite significantly more than that abstract idea.” (pg. 4)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory of a computer and a crm are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions (collecting and analyzing) that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. The use of reinforcement learning is interpreted in an ‘apply it’ manner to analyze data. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Nor are the limitations reflective of non-conventional combination of elements.
Applicant argues, “Dependent claim 5 further narrows the reinforcement learning limitation by specifying that the reinforcement learning includes maximizing a reward value calculated by a predetermined reward function. This is an additional, specific technical detail of the claimed machine learning architecture, not an abstract mathematical concept standing alone. “ (pg. 5)
As previously stated, the use of reinforcement learning is interpreted in an ‘apply it’ manner in analyzing data. Including the reinforcement learning with maximizing a reward value is part of the analysis. This step does not provide significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 13, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to reference Mirth does not teach analysing using reinforcement learning has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving a first management policy indicating a course of action of overall management of an organization to be managed, from a person in charge of the organization;
cross-hierarchically analyzing the first management policy received and first on-site data collected from each hierarchical layer of the organization to be managed, and generating a first on-site policy indicating a course of action of management of the each hierarchical layer based on a relationship between the first management policy and the first on-site data of the each hierarchical layer, wherein analyzing is performed by an analysis model that executes reinforcement learning; and
notifying each on-site person in charge in the each hierarchical layer, of the first on- site policy generated.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a computer and crm). For example, receiving a first management policy, cross-hierarchically analyzing the first management policy using reinforcement learning, generating a first on-site policy involve managing personal behavior. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data based on receiving management policy data, cross-hierarchially analyzing data using machine learning and generating a policy (collecting and analyzing data).
Independent Claims 9 and 10 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to collecting second on-site data from each hierarchical layer and notifying person in charge (data gathering); Claim 3 is directed to analyzing the first management policy and second onsite data and generating a second onsite policy; Claim 4 is directed to receiving from a person in charge a second management policy indicating a course of action and analyzing the second management policy and second onsite data; Claim 5 is directed to an reinforcement learning analysis model includes maximizing a reward value (analyzing using complex mathematics); Claim 6 is directed to analysis performed by an algorithm that executes ERP (analyzing using complex mathematics); Claim 7 is directed to performing analysis of manufacturing industry and Claim 8 is directed to hierarchical layer belongs to a five layer process manufacturing pyramid.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a memory and a processor. Claim 10 recites the additional elements of a computer-readable recording medium and a computer. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Figure 2 and ¶0122). The claims additionally recite the additional element of reinforcement learning.
For instance, the steps of receiving a first management policy from a person in charge, cross-hierarchically analyzing the first management policy received from each hierarchical layer and generating a first on-site policy using a reinforcement learning is collecting and analyzing data using complex mathematics. Examiner notes that the use of reinforcement learning is interpreted in an ‘apply it’ manner. The step of notifying each onsite person in charge of a hierarchical layer is generic data transmission.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a computer, crm). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a computer, crm). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a computer and a crm are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-10 claim are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Choi et al. (KR 20200032912) discloses a work management method may complement lack of a work plan, which is established by a top-down method, by a bottom-up method subsequently by combining work plans generated by different departments to be reviewed by senior management.
Kojima et al. (JP 2002288403 A) discloses a project manager(PM) who plans the project has a plurality of subordinate groups, and a group leader(GL) leads each group. Each group is divided into a plurality of teams, and a team leader(TL) leads each team, and each team consists of a plurality of persons in charge. In this hierarchical constitution, the PM makes a plan of the project for each group and requests it to the GL.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
