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
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #19/143,376, filed on 06/02/2026.
Claims 6-9 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-5 have been cancelled by the applicant.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 6 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 8 claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore the medium is interpreted as an article of manufacture. An article of manufacture is a statutory category for patentability. Further, the claim is in conformity with the Kappos Memorandum of 2010 regarding medium claims, as it includes the phrase “non-transitory.” Claim 9 claims an information processing system comprising a server and a user terminal. Therefore, the system is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claims 6, 8, and 9 recite “receiving…at least child identification information identifying a child and risk assessment information regarding a risk assessment to support a protection decision for the child, wherein the risk assessment information includes already inputted result information and non-inputted information for one or more input items regarding risk assessment for the child, setting two or more patterns of hypothetical input results for input items corresponding to the non-inputted item information, estimating an indicator related to child abuse and a degree of contribution of the hypothetical input results to a value of the indicator, based on at least the already inputted result information and the two or more patterns of hypothetical input results for input items corresponding to the non-inputted item information, identifying a minimum value and a maximum value among estimates results of the indicator, providing the minimum value and the maximum value of the indicator as risk information relating to a child, comparing the indicator related to child abuse estimated based on the already inputted result information, investigation contents corresponding to non-inputted items having a high degree of contribution among the non-inputted items corresponding to at least one of the minimum or the maximum value of the indicator, and an increase or decrease in the value of the indicator based on the hypothetical input results corresponding to the investigation contents, wherein investigation contents corresponding to the non-inputted items are ranked according to investigation priority such that investigation contents corresponding to a non-inputted item having a higher degree of contribution to the estimated result are identified with a higher investigation priority.” Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims recite an abstract idea associated with “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The claims describe analysis and estimation of inputted and non-inputted data in order to determine the risk of a child being abused in their current family or other situation. Values are then generated to reflect the risk and the results are provided. The claims simply automate these steps using a computer. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The claims secondarily recite a mental process. A mental health, social work, or investigative professional could mentally analyze the data, estimate the risk of child abuse, generate values, and report the values. Therefore, the claims secondarily recite a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the independent claims include “a server terminal,” “a user terminal,” and “a processor and a memory.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also include steps done “automatically.” However, the mere recitation of “automatically,” absent further detail, is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and is recited at a high level of generality. This additional element is being used as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and is not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements added by amendment also include “automatically generating on a screen,” “automatically further configuring the screen so as to enable comparison,” “enabling the user terminal to display the screen,” “wherein, on the screen, investigation contents…are presented…,” and “results are presented.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). In contrast to the improved interface described in the patent eligible examples of the USPTO Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance of August 2024, in which in Example 21 Claim 2 the interface is an improved interface in the manner in which it displays the stock quotes, the description of these additional elements involves only standard display of data, including such as displaying two sets of data for comparison, but does not include improved interface/display screen features. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the independent claims include “a server terminal,” “a user terminal,” and “a processor and a memory.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims also include steps done “automatically.” However, the mere recitation of “automatically,” absent further detail, is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and is recited at a high level of generality. This additional element is being used as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and is not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements added by amendment also include “automatically generating on a screen,” “automatically further configuring the screen so as to enable comparison,” “enabling the user terminal to display the screen,” “wherein, on the screen, investigation contents…are presented…,” and “results are presented.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. The use of the terminal to display the results on a screen is also considered conventional computer functioning, similar to the examples listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)- see “presenting offers and gathering statistics” quoting OIP Techs v Amazon.com and “receiving and transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec and buySAFE v Google. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In contrast to the improved interface described in the patent eligible examples of the USPTO Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance of August 2024, in which in Example 21 Claim 2 the interface is an improved interface in the manner in which it displays the stock quotes, the description of these additional elements involves only standard display of data, including such as displaying two sets of data for comparison, but does not include improved interface/display screen features.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claim steps in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for analysis and estimation of inputted and non-inputted data in order to determine the risk of a child being abused in their current family or other situation, generation of values reflect the risk, and providing of those results. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 7 is considered part of the abstract idea, as providing the inputted items, absent further detail, is part of data gathering for analysis. The enabling the user to select results via the interface is considered conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to allow a user to select and set items on an interface display. The enabling of the user terminal display and indicator is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network,” which is considered conventional computer functioning (see MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i-ii)- citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google). Therefore, this additional limitation is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 7-8 of the response that claim 6 is directed to “a specific computer-implemented technique for processing incomplete child welfare assessment information…” and that the technique “improves the operation of a child welfare support system when assessment data is incomplete” and therefore the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application:
The examiner points out that the claims being “computer-implemented” do not make the claims patent eligible. Each and every element of the claims needs not be fully encompassed by the abstract idea in order for the claims to be found patent ineligible. Good examples of this are the Court decisions buySAFE v Google and OIP Techs v Amazon.com in which the claims recite e-commerce systems with multiple components that have specific functionality including interfaces, processors, servers, network interfaces, databases, etc., and yet the claims were still found to be patent ineligible.
Further, the examiner points out that the claims do not recite any improvement to the actual SYSTEM, but only recite a manner in which the user can analyze and compare the child welfare data USING the automated system versus doing similar steps manually with paper files and written data.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 8 of the response that the claimed display-related limitations are not insignificant extra-solution activity:
The examiner notes that the limitation in question has now been cancelled. The limitation did not positively recite generating a screen and displaying data, but only “enabling” the user terminal to display. The claims have now been amended and the rejection cites different rationale for the amended limitations.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 of the response that the specific data-processing techniques improve the operation of a technological system and provide a practical application, much like example 37 of the 2019 PEG and example 47 of the 2024 PEG, and therefore, the claims should be patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as well:
First of all, the current claims do not improve a technological system. There is no improvement to “the computer itself, another technology, or the technical field” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). This is in contrast to Example 47 in which it is not even enough to just allege an improvement in principle, but there is an actual final, technical step at the end of the claims which is cited as the reason for eligibility:
Claim 2 of Example 47 (shown below) clearly includes training and use of a machine learning model with some detail, but is still considered patent ineligible because the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered the equivalent of “apply it” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea. Only the following claim in the example which includes the subsequent identification of further communications from the identified malicious network addresses and removal of those communications as they could contain malicious code is considered patent eligible.
CLAIM 2:
A method of using an artificial neural network (ANN) comprising:
(a) receiving, at a computer, continuous training data;
(b) discretizing, by the computer, the continuous training data to generate input data;
(c) training, by the computer, the ANN based on the input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm;
(d) detecting one or more anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN;
(e) analyzing the one or more detected anomalies using the trained ANN to generate anomaly data; and
(f) outputting the anomaly data from the trained ANN.
In Example 37, the claims recite a clear specific technical solution to a problem. The invention provides a method for automatically relocating the most-used icons closer to a “start” or “home” icon on the GUI, improving accessibility and user efficiency. This includes Automatic tracking of icon usage: A processor monitors how often each icon is selected or how much memory is allocated to processes associated with each icon over a period of time (e.g., day, week, month). Dynamic rearrangement: Based on the tracked usage, the system moves the most frequently used icons to a preferred location on the GUI. Graphical user interface improvement: The method enhances the usability of the computer system by reducing the time and effort required to access frequently used applications. These are all technological improvements to the way the interface itself works to display data, REGARDLESS OF WHAT DATA IS BEING DISPLAYED. There is no technical field of “child welfare risk data display.” The use of the screens and display of data in the claimed invention does not show any kind of improvement in the way Example 37 does.
Further, in the Enfish decision, the Court stated that “In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” The claims in Enfish was found to be eligible because they had invented a new type of database, a self-referential database, which improved the basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. The computer itself is improved in Enfish because it processes, stores, and retrieves data faster and more efficiently regardless of what data it is. In the current invention, the alleged improvement is for better ability to process, analyze, and compare child welfare data. The use of a computer automates this process, but there is no improvement to the computer, another technology, or the technical field.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments to the claims are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
The amendments have overcome the prior art rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn. The examiner could not find a reasonable combination of references that would meet all the limitations of the claims as amended.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated any new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 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 Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights