DETAILED ACTION
Response received on July 12, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, have been amended and Claims 6, 12, and 18 are cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 are pending.
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on July 23, 2025. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 are pending.
Priority
Application 19/277,975 was filed on 07/23/2025 and is a continuation application of PCT/JP2024/001666, filed on January 22, 2024, which is based upon and claims the benefit of priority of the prior Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-027450, filed on February 24, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 16, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of July 12, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action. The examiner acknowledges the amendments made to Claim 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 are directed to a method (process) and Claims 7-11 are directed to a system (machine/apparatus), and Claims 13-17 are directed to a device (machine). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A measure evaluation assistance method comprising: generating a first evaluation space on a user interface of a user terminal, the first evaluation space being generated by plotting an evaluation result inputted through the user interface for each of a plurality of measures by a plurality of evaluation items on the first evaluation value space having the plurality of evaluation items as coordinate axes; generating a second evaluation space on the user interface of the user terminal, the second evaluation space being generated by applying a weight on each of the coordinate axes of the first evaluation space corresponding to each of the plurality of evaluation items, the weight being inputted through the user interface; calculating Euclidean distances for each of all pairs of the plurality of measures in the second evaluation value space, and extracting a plurality of combinations of measures based on the Euclidean distances; for each of the extracted plurality of combinations of measures, generating a screen on the user interface of the user terminal to receive input of an evaluation of goodness or badness between measures included in each of the extracted plurality of combinations of measures; and generating on the user interface of the user terminal a distribution chart, the distribution chart being generated based on the inputted evaluation of goodness or badness between measures included in each of the extracted plurality of combinations of measures, and the distribution chart indicating a range in which the inputted evaluation of goodness or badness by high and a range in which the inputted evaluation of goodness or badness is low in the first evaluation value space, wherein the extracting of the plurality of combinations of measures includes extracting the combinations such that each of the plurality of measures is included in the extracted combinations in an even manner, and extracting combinations of measures having large Euclidean distances.
Similarly, Claim 7, as exemplary example for Claim 13 is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores a program causing a computer to execute a process, the process including: generating a first evaluation space on a user interface of a user terminal, the first evaluation space being generated by plotting an evaluation result inputted through the user interface for each of a plurality of measures by a plurality of evaluation items on the first evaluation value space having the plurality of evaluation items as coordinate axes; generating a second evaluation space on the user interface of the user terminal, the second evaluation space being generated by applying a weight on each of the coordinate axes of the first evaluation space corresponding to each of the plurality of evaluation items, the weight being inputted through the user interface setting-a-weight for each of the plurality of evaluation items; calculating Euclidean distances for each of all pairs of the plurality of measures in the second evaluation value space, and extracting a plurality of combinations of measures based on the Euclidean distances; for each of the extracted plurality of combinations of measures, generating a screen on the user interface of the user terminal to receive input of an evaluation of goodness or badness between measures included in each of the extracted plurality of combinations of measures; and generating on the user interface of the user terminal a distribution chart, the distribution chart being generated based on the inputted evaluation of goodness or badness between measures included in each of the extracted plurality of combinations of measures, and the distribution chart indicating a range in which the inputted evaluation of goodness or badness by is high and a range in which the inputted evaluation of goodness or badness is low in the first evaluation value space, wherein the extracting of the plurality of combinations of measures includes extracting the combinations such that each of the plurality of measures is included in the extracted combinations in an even manner, and extracting combinations of measures having large Euclidean distances.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of evaluating and comparing multiple measures using weighted preferences to determine and present similarity-based results. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions include agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.) That is, other than reciting the computer claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the recited computer components, the claim encompasses evaluating and comparing a plurality of measures based on user-defined weighting preferences, which could be performed manually by a person by assigning importance to different criteria, comparing options, and determining relative rankings. Such activities can traditionally be carried out using personal judgment, written notes, or simple charts to assess similarities and determine which combinations of measures are more favorable. Additionally, generating a distribution chart reflecting ranges of high and low evaluations based on relative comparisons constitutes a method of organizing human activity in the form of a commercial or evaluative practice, as it involves managing and analyzing alternatives to support decisions making. The claimed evaluation process is ultimately used to facilitate selection and comparison decisions, and therefore amounts to a commercial practice of evaluating and ranking options based on user preference. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing commercials interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a user interface of a user terminal”, “user interface”, “a screen”, “a measure evaluation assistance device”, “a memory”, and “a processor” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 7, and 13 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). Claim 1 recites the additional element of “a user interface of a user terminal”, “user interface”, “a screen”. Claim 7 recites the additional element of “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a user interface of a user terminal”, “user interface”, “a screen”. Claim 13 recites the additional element of “a measure evaluation assistance device”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “a user interface of a user terminal”, “user interface”, “a screen”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in technological environment. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link to implementation by the claimed CRM or processor because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). The additional elements (CRM, processor, memory, & device) are recited only as generic components performing their ordinary functions of receiving evaluation data, applying weights, processing the data to generate evaluation value spaces and combinations, and outputting a distribution chart, without any specific technological improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any underlying data processing techniques. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of using computer and processor when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 7, and 13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2, 8, and 14 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include acquiring the inputted evaluation of goodness or badness between measures included in a combination of measures for a preliminary test; and estimating a degreeplurality of evaluation items based on the inputted evaluation of goodness or badness between measures included in the combination of measures for the preliminary test. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define managing and analyzing alternatives to support decisions making, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include identifying measures in which the inputted evaluation of one evaluation item is higher than the inputted evaluation of another evaluation item from among the plurality of measures plotted on the first evaluation value space; and setting a combination of identified measures as the combination of measures for the preliminary test. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define managing and analyzing alternatives to support decisions making, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 4-5, 10-11, and 16-17 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include acquiring a degree to which the user emphasizes each of the plurality of evaluation items, the degree being input by the user and wherein the combination of measures is a pair of two measures. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define managing and analyzing alternatives to support decisions making, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 10 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the claims are directed to a user interface on a user terminal that generates a first evaluation space, a second evaluation space, a screen to receive input of an evaluation of goodness or badness between measures included in each of the extracted plurality of combinations of measures, and a distribution chart, as well as the specific manner for how these are done and that these features do not cover methods of organizing human activity nor a person's assessment of importance or evaluation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although the claims recite generating evaluation spaces, receiving user evaluations, and displaying a distribution chart, these elements merely present and organize information to facilitate human evaluation of combinations of measures and therefore remain directed to an abstract idea rather than an improvement to computer technology. Applicant further argues that generating the second evaluation value space through weighted coordinate transformation, calculating Euclidean distances for all pairs of measures, and extracting combinations of measures based on the calculated Euclidean distances are specific numerical and algorithmic processes, rather than mere human evaluation, comparison, or judgment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although the claims recite weighted coordinate transformation, Euclidean distance calculations, and extraction of combinations based on those calculations, these mathematical operations are used merely to analyze and organize evaluation data for subsequent human assessment and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or improve the functioning of a computer or other technology.
Applicant further argues that such specific features for how specific aspects of the user interface of the user terminal is generated are also not practically performable as a mental process. User interfaces on terminals cannot be manipulated by a human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the Office Action does not characterize the claims as being directed to a mental process. Rather, the claims were determined to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and the recited additional elements merely implement and present the results of that abstract idea on a generic computer without integrating the exception into a practical application. Applicant further argues that the above-noted features are additional features that integrate any judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the recited additional elements merely collect, analyze, and present information in regards to the abstract idea and do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Applicant further argues that as such, at least the above-noted features reflect an improvement to computer functionality (the improvements to software by logical processes that can make non-abstract improvements mentioned in the above-noted reminder in the Advance Notice) in the technical field of measure evaluation (a "technical field" that the above-noted Advance Notice corrections to the MPEP indicated to be considered for Step 2A Prong 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed features do not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology, but instead use generic computer components as tools to perform mathematical analysis, receive user evaluations, and display the resulting information. Any improvement is directed to the abstract evaluation methodology rather to computer functionality, and therefore the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant further argues that the above-noted features integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2, much like the "reduced system complexity and streamlining" improvement contributing to eligibility under Step 2A, Prong 2 in Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that unlike the claims in Ex parte Desjardins, the claimed invention does not reduce system complexity or improve the functioning of the computer or another technology. Rather, the recited user interface, calculations, and data visualization merely implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant further argues that the claim amounts to significantly more than merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter. Rather, the claimed user interface, user terminal, calculation operations, and display of evaluation results constitute generic computer functions used to implement the abstract idea and therefore do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B. Applicant further argues that these limitations define a particular data-processing logic and user interface on the user terminal that improves the user interface for measure evaluation as well as improving the efficiency and reliability of measure evaluation itself, which is significantly more than merely instructing a practitioner to apply an abstract concept on a computer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed data-processing logic and user interface merely implement the abstract evaluation process using generic computer functionality and improve, at most, the evaluation methodology itself rather than the operation of the computer or user interface. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. Thus, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement and fail to provide an inventive concept. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
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
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights