DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed July 10, 2025. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to an apparatus. Claim 12 is directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of collecting and processing information. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “method processes” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to collecting and processing known information. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A consensus building support device comprising:
a processor configured to execute a program;
a storage device configured to store the program; and
a communication interface configured to communicate with a plurality of communication terminals used by a plurality of participants, wherein
the processor executes acquisition processing of receiving, from the communication terminals, an opinion related to a discussion for determining any one option from among a plurality of options, as a result of transmitting information related to the discussion to the plurality of communication terminals, specifying processing of specifying an option selected by the participant for each opinion received by the acquisition processing, combining processing of combining the opinions based on the option specified by the specifying processing, and transmission processing of transmitting, to the communication terminals, a combination result obtained by combining the opinions by the combining processing.
Independent claim 12 recites similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the communication terminals, storage device, communication interface, support device, and processor are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of collecting and processing known information. Viewed as a whole, the use of communication terminals, storage device, communication interface, support device, and processor as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the communication terminals, storage device, communication interface, support device, and processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of collecting and processing known information. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of collecting and processing known information. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as wherein in the combining processing, the processor combines opinions having the same options, and
in the transmission processing, the processor transmits, to the communication terminals, a first combination result obtained by combining the opinions having the same options in the combining processing.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a signal per se.
MPEP 2106 [R-11.2013] states:
A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.
For example, machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine readable media in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In this case, claim 13 recites “A computer-readable recording medium storing instructions.” Applicant’s specification states that the “storage device 402 is non-transitory or transitory recording medium that stores various programs or data.” Therefore, the specification does not exclude the medium from being a transitory recording medium.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 117972781 to Cheng in view of “Real Time Spatial Delphi: Fast convergence of experts’ opinions on the territory” to Zio et al. (“Zio”).
As per claim 1, Cheng discloses a processor configured to execute a program (p. 11, second paragraph);
a storage device configured to store the program (p. 11, first paragraph- computer-usable storage media (including, but not limited to, disk memory, CD-ROM, optical memory, etc.) in which computer-usable program code is contained);
and a communication interface configured to communicate with a plurality of communication terminals used by a plurality of participants (abstract – blockchain; p. 2- background – The blockchain is a distributed, transparent, trustless, publicly accessible ledger for maintaining permanent and tamper-proof records of transaction data in a distributed peer-to-peer network), wherein
the processor executes
acquisition processing of receiving, from the communication terminals, an opinion as a result of transmitting information related to the discussion to the plurality of communication terminals (abstract – collecting decision related data...deploying the initial decision model and the obtained initial decision opinion)
specifying processing of specifying an option selected by the participant for each opinion received by the acquisition processing (abstract – clustering the initial decision opinion),
combining processing of combining the opinions based on the option specified by the specifying processing (abstract – obtain the final decision; p.9, second paragraph – the decision making member combines the clustering result), and
transmission processing of transmitting, to the communication terminals, a combination result obtained by combining the opinions by the combining processing p.7 at S3 – the upper blockchain is submitted; p. 2-broadcast in the network).
Cheng does not expressly disclose an opinion related to a discussion for determining any one option from among a plurality of options.
Zio discloses an opinion related to a discussion for determining any one option from among a plurality of options (p. 143-145 – the Delphi method; p. 144 – each expert of a panel anonymously answer questions in an online questionnaire, for each question, he/she can also give written arguments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Zio to Cheng as it utilizes conventional concepts employed by the Delphi method in order to achieve a consensus on a topic. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Cheng discloses wherein in the specifying processing, an output result from a learning model, which estimates the option when the opinion is input, is specified as the option selected by the participant by inputting the opinion to the learning model (pp. 5 and 6 – decision models …calculation result…output result).
As per claim 3, Cheng discloses wherein in the combining processing, the processor combines opinions having the same options, and in the transmission processing, the processor transmits, to the communication terminals, a first combination result obtained by combining the opinions having the same options in the combining processing (see claim 1 above – clustering).
As per claim 4, Zio discloses wherein in the transmission processing, the processor transmits the first combination result so that the opinions are displayable as information in a same figure (abstract -calculates and displays a circle representing the convergence of the opinions).
As per claim 5, Zio discloses wherein in the combining processing, the processor combines a first opinion of a first participant selecting a first option and a second opinion of a second participant selecting a second option in response to the first opinion, and in the transmission processing, the processor transmits, to the communication terminals, a second combination result obtained by combining the first opinion and the second opinion by the combining processing (see claim 1 and 4 above and p. 145- after collecting the second cloud of points, a new circle is calculated).
As per claim 6, Zio discloses wherein in the transmission processing, the processor transmits the second combination result in a displayable manner as information in which a first figure having the first opinion and a second figure having the second opinion are connected (see claim 4 above).
As per claim 7, Zio discloses the combining processing, the processor further combines a third opinion of the first participant selecting the second option, and in the transmission processing, the processor transmits, to the communication terminals, a third combination result obtained by combining the first opinion, the second opinion, and the third opinion in the combining processing (see claim 5 above).
As per claim 8, Zio discloses wherein in the transmission processing, the processor transmits the third combination result so that the first opinion, the second opinion, and the third opinion are displayable as information in a same figure (see claim 5 above).
As per claim 9, Zio discloses wherein the processor repeatedly executes the acquisition processing, the specifying processing, the combining processing, and the transmission processing within a time limit (see claim 1; p. 144 – fixed number of times and at present time intervals; The Delphi method).
As per claim 10, Zio wherein the processor repeatedly executes a round in which the acquisition processing, the specifying processing, the combining processing, and the transmission processing are repeatedly executed within the time limit (see claim 9 above).
As per claim 11, Zio discloses wherein the processor repeatedly executes the round until the combination result converges to one (see claims 1 and 1 above; p. 147 -the closer this measures to 1, the smaller the final circle…use of consensus as stopping criterion).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected on the same rationale as claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697