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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission for Application #19/143,376, filed on 08/12/2026. The following is a NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to the request for continued examination.
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 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. The additional elements added by amendment include “a recording system that records data related to child welfare or administrative information” and “data newly recorded in the recording system.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. Further, the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iii-iv) lists examples of conventional computer functioning as including “storing and retrieving information in a memory” (see Versata Dev Grp v SAP) and “electronic recordkeeping” (see Alice Corp). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements added by amendment also include “performing data linkage for data newly recorded….” However, this additional element is considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to perform data linkage on stored data. Therefore, these additional elements are 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. The additional elements added by amendment include “a recording system that records data related to child welfare or administrative information” and “data newly recorded in the recording system.” However, the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iii-iv) lists examples of conventional computer functioning as including “storing and retrieving information in a memory” (see Versata Dev Grp v SAP) and “electronic recordkeeping” (see Alice Corp). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements added by amendment also include “performing data linkage for data newly recorded….” However, this additional element is considered conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to perform data linkage on stored data. Therefore, this additional element 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.)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 6-10 of the response that the claims as amended cannot be performed in the human mind:
The arguments are directed to the claims as amended, and the amendments have been addressed in the 101 rejection above. To briefly comment on the argument, the examiner points out that the aspect of data linkage and newly recorded data, these are considered additional elements and have been addressed not in the consideration of the claims reciting an abstract idea, but in the Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B analyses.
Further, the abstract idea being a mental process was only a secondary consideration. The primary finding was that the claims recite an organization of human activity. Also, even if the source of data that is analyzed is from data linkage, this data linkage is analyzed separately as a conventional means for accessing and gathering data, as it is well known in the computer arts for one system to periodically ping, retrieve, refresh, or request data from another system as data becomes available. A wide variety of industries use these techniques and have for decades including as examples real estate in which Zillow.com periodically receives information from MLS systems throughout the country via data linkage, to banks which periodically receive transaction data from payment and settlement entities of various sorts and update their customer records.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 11-12 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 portions of the argument directed to the claims as amended have been addressed in the 101 rejection above.
Further, 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 pages 12-13 that the claims should be considered significantly more, particularly as an ordered combination:
The ordered combination does not lead to any improvement in a technological system. There is no improvement to “the computer itself, another technology, or the technical field” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). In fact, the applicant’s argument itself in which the ordered combination is “new recording of data, automatic inter-system data linkage, estimation using the linked data, determination of investigation priority and screen presentation using the estimation results” speaks to this being true. The underlined portions clearly show the abstract idea. The new recording of data and data linkage uses conventional technology to gather the data to be analyzed. And the presentation on the screen uses technology as a tool to present the data that has been analyzed. Further, in the BASCOM decision, which the Courts pointed to as an example of an ordered combination leading to patent eligibility, the Court pointed to the literal, physical combination of pieces, not just a combination of steps in a claim. Specifically, it was the physical placement of the customer-specific internet filter on the server/system side and not on the user device side while still being able to maintain customer-specific filtering that was considered the “combination of pieces” that was patent eligible.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments to the claims are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Conclusion
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