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 FIRST, NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION for Application #19/143,376, filed on 06/26/2025, and a Preliminary Amendment filed on 06/26/2025. This application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/JP2023/040115, filed on 11/07/2023. This application claims priority to Japanese Application JP 2022-211543, filed on 12/28/2022.
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, estimating an indicator related to child abuse based on at least two or more patterns of hypothetical input results to input items corresponding to the already inputted result information and 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, and providing investigation contents of non-inputted items that contribute significantly to the estimated result and a value of the indicator based on the hypothetical input results corresponding to the investigation contents among the non-inputted items corresponding to at least one of the minimum or the maximum value of the indicator.” 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 recite “enable the user terminal to display….” This additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as the data is sent for display only after the analysis, estimation, and generation of risk values is completed. Further, the enabling of display 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 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 recite “enable the user terminal to display….” This additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as the data is sent for display only after the analysis, estimation, and generation of risk values is completed. Further, the enabling of display 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.
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.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Application Kota, et al., JP 2020184185 A (publication and translation included with this Office Action) in view of Bakker, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0278470 A1.
Regarding Claims 6, 8, and 9, Kota teaches:
A service support method (medium- claim 8) (system- claim 9) for supporting child welfare services, provided by a server terminal that is connected via a network to a user terminal associated with a user of a child welfare center, the method comprising:
wherein the server terminal comprises a processor and a memory including a program, wherein the program is configured, with the processor, to cause the server terminal to (claim 9 only): (see at least Figure 1 and the description of Figure 1 on page 2 of the translation that clearly identifies a server terminal including a processor and memory as well as a user terminal)
receiving from the user terminal at least child identification information identifying a child and risk assessment information regarding a risk assessment to support protection decision for the child, wherein the risk assessment information includes already inputted result information and non-inputted item information, identifying a minimum value and a maximum value among estimated results of the indicator (see page 2 of translation in which Database 1020 stores various types of inputted information, page 5 in reference to Figure 4 in which the terminal device 2000 receives input of basic information of a child from a staff member, as well as other various types of information; Also, end of page 5 into page 6 in which various types of information are inputted into terminal device 2000; top of page 6 in which non-inputted information such as images from a camera of bruises and other such injuries and other similar data are also used in the risk assessment (the examiner notes that this interpretation of non-inputted data is made in light of the applicant’s specification in which it is described that non-inputted data could be such as images from a camera or video recordings that the server receives directly rather than information inputted by a staff member or other user, etc.); see also end of page 6 referring to Figure 6 in which estimated/predicted child abuse risk values are displayed on graphs and charts in which a maximum probability value of child abuse risk is calculated and displayed)
enabling a user terminal to display the maximum value of the indicator as risk information relating to the child (see at least Figure 6 and pages 6-7 in which estimated/predicted child abuse risk values are displayed on graphs and charts in which a maximum probability value of child abuse risk is calculated and displayed)
enabling the user terminal to display investigation contents of non-inputted items that contribute significantly to the estimated result and a value of the indicator based on the hypothetical input results corresponding to the investigation contents among the non-inputted items corresponding to the maximum value of the indicator (see pages 2-3 and 5 in which the inputted data and non-inputted data is used by the server terminal to input into a data AI model that calculates an estimated/predicted hypothetical risk score of child abuse for the child based on the data and those results are outputted to the user terminal in such as pages 3-5 and 8-9)
Kota, however, does not appear to specify:
a minimum value of the indicator
Bakker teaches:
a minimum value of the indicator (see [0045] in which both a maximum and minimum value of the range of risk assessment indicator of the health issue are displayed as results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Bakker with Kota because Kota already teaches display of a maximum calculated risk value in such as Figure 6 and pages 5-6, and displaying a minimum and maximum value allows for a fuller picture of the range of risk prediction including a minimum value, which is always useful in assessing a minimum danger potential even if the maximum is not actually realized.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kota and Bakker teaches:
the method of claim 1
Kota further teaches:
providing non-inputted items that contribute significantly to the estimated result at the server terminal (see at least page 6 in which non-inputted items already discussed above are provided)
enabling the user to select and set applicable or not-applicable, and hypothetical input results for non-inputted items that contribute significantly to the estimated result via the user terminal (see Figure 7 and page 7 in which the decision-making screen of Figure 7 includes the user of the user terminal selecting which items are applicable or non-applicable to being used to calculate the comprehensive risk)
enabling the user terminal to display the indicator corresponding to the set hypothetical input results (see pages 2-3 and 5 in which the inputted data and non-inputted data is used by the server terminal to input into a data AI model that calculates an estimated/predicted hypothetical risk score of child abuse for the child based on the data and those results are outputted to the user terminal in such as Figure 6 and pages 3-5 and 8-9)
Conclusion
The following prior art references were not relied upon in this office action but are considered pertinent to this application:
Korean Publication KR 102690065 B1 published on 07/30/2024, filed on 12/29/2021 (publication and translation included with this Office Action). Teaches child abuse risk assessment based on inputted and non-inputted data from various sources. Risk assessment is outputted and is calculated using an AI model. The estimate is a prediction.
Un, Kim Young, et al. KR 101790587 B1, published 10/26/2017(publication and translation included with this Office Action). Also teaches risk assessment of child abuse based on various data points using machine learning and publishing results to such as a care facility or agency.
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