DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 10/01/2025. Therefore, Claims 1-11 are pending and have been addressed below. 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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
3. Regarding Step One, claim 1 recites a machine (i.e., consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 6 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps), claim 11 recites a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.) Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Regarding Step 2A [Prong One], claims 1, 6, and 11 recite:
“infer, based on the acquired relationship information, design results, and input information, correspondence relationships spanning the design tasks with respect to each part of the design results and the input information;”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea for developing a report that helps developers and engineers understand how design documents and development tasks relate which encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e., mitigating risk), commercial interactions (i.e., marketing or sales activities, business relations), mental concepts (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), and falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The Applicant’s Specification in at least [0002-0005] In a system development project, risk management plays an important role in ensuring the success of the project. As a method for project risk assessment, there is a case where a method of aggregating evaluation values of people based on development documents or the like is used (for example, see Patent Literature 1 (JP2022-180289)). In the field of text quality analysis, a method for evaluating the quality of documents or the like has also been proposed, in which natural language processing technology is used to learn from good examples and bad examples. However, in the development tasks of a complex system, hierarchical dependencies exist. Therefore, in a case where defects exist in the deliverables at each stage, risks related to quality, such as rework, failure to meet a delivery deadline, and failure to meet performance, may arise. For this reason, it is necessary to improve the relationships of each stage of the development process and to enhance the visibility of the areas to be modified.
Consistent with the disclosure, the limitations as a whole are considered fundamental economic practices and/or business relations because the steps develop a report that helps developers and engineers understand how design documents and development tasks relate. The limitations carry out tasks that may be performed by a person that has access to design documents and development tasks the ability to evaluate and understand risks and performance issues relating to their particular project. In this way, the limitations cover subject matter that may be reasonably characterized as falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
The limitations also recite mental processes because the step of “inferring” in the context of the claim involves processes for understanding the meaning of the information (such as so a developer can see how requirements affect design) where these steps can be performed by a human using observation and because they involve determinations and inferences which are mental tasks humans routinely do and thus can be practically performed in the human mind. In this way, the limitations may be reasonably characterized as falling within the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
5. Regarding Step 2A [Prong Two], the recited additional elements include:
“an information processing apparatus comprising”, “at least one memory storing a set of instructions;” “at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to:”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer mounted on an information processing apparatus to perform processing for:”– see claims 1, 6, 11 which are features recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification [Fig. 19, ¶ 0181-0188]. Since the specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, these additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computer components being used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The other additional elements of: “acquire relationship information between a plurality of design tasks constituting a design flow, design results of the design tasks, and input information for executing the design tasks, the input information…;”, “and “display, based on the inferred correspondence relationships, a correspondence structure with respect to the design results and the input information” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering/output, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The other additional elements of: “of a system”, “including at least natural language”, “over an entirety of the system” is/are an attempt to limit the claim to a particular field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), 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.
6. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “an information processing apparatus comprising”, “at least one memory storing a set of instructions;” “at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to:”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer mounted on an information processing apparatus to perform processing for:” – see claims 1, 6, 11 at best add the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and mere instructions to apply the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The other additional element of: “acquire relationship information between a plurality of design tasks constituting a design flow, design results of the design tasks, and input information for executing the design tasks, the input information…;”, and “display, based on the inferred correspondence relationships, a correspondence structure with respect to the design results and the input information” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata Dev. Group court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate: “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Thus, when viewing these additional elements individually and as a whole in combination with the judicial exception, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
7. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 have been addressed below:
Claims 2 and 7 recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to realize an interface for adjusting a range for displaying the correspondence structure regarding the design results and the input information in a form of summarization, detailing, and parallel movement of a display range at same level, and wherein the adjusting is able to be performed at least by a click and a drag of a predetermined displayed location.” Here, the processor and interface are recited at a high-level of generality as generic components that are used to perform generic functions of the abstract idea. Allowing a user to adjusting a range is merely tailoring information for a user. The use of generic computer elements like a processor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claims 3 and 8 recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to realize an interface that displays a list of other design results or input information for which any one of addition, change, or deletion becomes necessary along with the addition, change, or deletion of the design results or the input information in a case where any one of the addition, change or deletion of the design results or the input information has been performed or a user inputs a planned location at which any one of the addition, change, or deletion of the design results or the input information is to be performed. Here, the processor and interface are recited at a high-level of generality as generic components that are used to perform generic functions of the abstract idea. At best, the claim presents design results and information without improving the functioning of computers or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Claims 4 and 9 recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to realize an interface, the interface allowing changes in a final system corresponding to a deliverable, that displays a list including at least one of performance measurement results and estimated performance. Here, the processor and interface are recited at a high-level of generality as generic components that are used to perform generic functions of the abstract idea. At best, the claim allows a user to add changes to the project using the interface without improving the functioning of computers or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claims 5 and 10 recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to realize an interface, the interface allowing changes in a final system corresponding to a deliverable, that displays, in a case where a user inputs a desired change area in at least one of performance measurement results and estimated performance, the design results or the input information for which any one of the addition, change, or deletion becomes necessary in accordance with the input of the desired change area.” Here, the processor and interface are recited at a high-level of generality as generic components that are used to perform generic functions of the abstract idea. At best, the claim allows a user to add changes to the project using the interface without improving the functioning of computers or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus each of the interfaces described by the claims behave in their ordinary and expected manner to display information and allow user to add changes and to tailor the displayed information. When viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the limitations recited in the dependent claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Massey (US 12,158,908 B1).
With respect to claims 1, 6, and 11, Massey discloses
an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (abstract, Fig. 12: discloses methods, systems, and non-transitory computer readable memory for systems engineering) comprising:
at least one memory storing a set of instructions (Fig. 12, col. 1:43-60: discloses at least one memory); and
at least one processor (Fig. 12, col. 1:43-60: discloses at least one processor) configured to execute the set of instructions to:
acquire relationship information between a plurality of design tasks constituting a design flow of a system (Figs. 4a, 4b, col. 5:9-31, col. 8:52-57: discloses the project server 120 may receive processed and uploaded engineering information), design results of the design tasks (col. 4:66-67), and input information for executing the design tasks (col. 4:66-67), the input information including at least natural language (col. 4:66-67: discloses the project server 120 may enable the user to input text to describe requirements or design features.);
infer, based on the acquired relationship information, design results, and input information, correspondence relationships spanning the design tasks with respect to each part of the design results and the input information (Fig. 3, col. 5:39-59: discloses the project server 120 may utilize a language model that makes inferences to handle unstructured or semi-structured data, i.e., text prompts, text input, text files, metadata, code file, etc, to extract entity related information and generate a structured relationship between discrete data fields, files, records, or pointers to generate relationships between entities. The language model service may process the input data to determine an entity mapping. The NLP model may process different types of engineering information including a set of machine-readable text, engineering specifications, metadata, code, and the like.); and
display (col. 3:58-59: discloses the user device 105 may be associated with a user, i.e., an engineer/software developer of a project. col. 4: 62-65: discloses the project server 120 may generate and provide graphical user interfaces to user devices 105 so that user of the user devices may view data from the project server 120),
based on the inferred correspondence relationships, a correspondence structure with respect to the design results and the input information over an entirety of the system. (Fig. 11, col. 3:30-42, col. 4: 39-50, col. 6:53-67, col. 7:1-67, col. 9:13-19: discloses the project server 120 may generate an output, i.e., a MBSE diagram, based on the relationship information. The MBSE diagram may document design versions and provide external stakeholders with a human understandable formats of design and requirement verification. In some cases the output is a project object including objectives, requirements, how are objectives/requirements verified, and maps to be used to build and connect the entities.)
With respect to claims 3 and 8, Massey discloses the information processing apparatus and information processing method,
wherein the at least one processor (Fig. 12, col. 1:43-60: discloses at least one processor) is further configured to execute the set of instructions to realize an interface (col. 4:62-67: discloses the project server 120 may generate and provide graphical user interfaces) that
displays a list of other design results or
input information for which any one of addition, change, or deletion becomes necessary along with the addition, change, or deletion of the design results or the input information in a case where any one of the addition, change or deletion of the design results or the input information has been performed (col. 4:5-67: discloses so that users of the user devices may view data, interact with, and provide data instructions to the project server 120. The project server enables the user to store, manage, update objectives, requirements, how are objectives/requirements verified and maps used to build and connect software entities.) or
a user inputs a planned location at which any one of the addition, change, or deletion of the design results or the input information is to be performed.
With respect to claims 4 and 9, Massey discloses the information processing apparatus and information processing method,
wherein the at least one processor (Fig. 12, col. 1:43-60: discloses at least one processor) is further configured to execute the set of instructions to realize an interface, the interface allowing changes in a final system corresponding to a deliverable (col. 14:67-col. 15:1-38: discloses a user may interact with a CAD model of a wing and interact with an airflow model over the wing. The project server 120 if engineering changes are obtained update the digital twin which represents a deliverable.), that displays a list including at least one of performance measurement results and estimated performance. (col. 14:67-col. 15:1-38: discloses the project server 120 compares the expectation of simulation or design with real world telemetry data. After confirmation or updates, a new simulation may be run against the known performance to determine different or harder test situations.)
With respect to claims 5 and 10, Massey discloses the information processing apparatus and information processing method,
wherein the at least one processor (Fig. 12, col. 1:43-60: discloses at least one processor) is further configured to execute the set of instructions to realize an interface, the interface allowing changes in a final system corresponding to a deliverable col. 14:67-col. 15:1-38: discloses a user may interact with a CAD model of a wing and interact with an airflow model over the wing. The project server 120 if engineering changes are obtained update the digital twin which represents a deliverable.),
that displays, in a case where a user inputs a desired change area in at least one of performance measurement results and estimated performance (col. 14:67-col. 15:1-38: discloses the project server 120 compares the expectation of simulation or design with real world telemetry data. After confirmation or updates, a new simulation may be run against the known performance to determine different or harder test situations.), the design results or the input information for which any one of the addition, change, or deletion becomes necessary in accordance with the input of the desired change area. (col. 14:67-col. 15:1-38: discloses in response to the project object being updated, the project server may update the digital twin based on the underlying changes to the project object.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries 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.
12. Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massey in further view of O’Dowd (US 2018/0101466 A1).
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Massey discloses the information processing apparatus and information processing method,
wherein the at least one processor (Fig. 12, col. 1:43-60: discloses at least one processor) is further configured to
execute the set of instructions to realize an interface (col. 4:62-67: discloses the project server 120 may generate and provide graphical user interfaces)
The Massey reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the O’Dowd reference is related to systems and methods for visualizing and/or analyzing trace or log data collected during execution of one or more computer systems... (¶ 0002, 0007) and teaches:
for adjusting a range for displaying the correspondence structure regarding the design results and the input information in a form of summarization, detailing, and parallel movement of a display range at same level (¶ 0143, 0170-0171, 0221: discloses in response to a request to display a selected portion of one or more trace events, retrieve a subset of trace events from a summary level and rendering it on a display device. The rendering engine can then decide which summary level is appropriate.), and wherein the adjusting is able to be performed at least by a click and a drag of a predetermined displayed location. (¶ 0107, 0368)
As can be seen from at least (¶ 0007) the O’Dowd reference, a need existed for improved trace data visualization and/or analysis tools that better enable software developers to understand the often complex interactions in software that can result in bugs, performance problems, and testing difficulties. A need also existed for systems and methods for presenting the relevant trace data information to users in easy-to-understand displays and interfaces, so as to enable software developers to navigate quickly through potentially large collections of trace data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Massey’s interface to include the ability for adjusting a range for displaying the correspondence structure regarding the design results and the input information in a form of summarization, detailing, and parallel movement of a display range at same level and wherein the adjusting is able to be performed at least by a click and a drag of a predetermined displayed location, as taught by O’Dowd to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by the O’Dowd reference, the motivation for the combination would have been to facilitate developers' understanding and analysis of the behavior of such large/complex programs, and that enable developers to visualize aspects of such programs operation (¶ 0007, 0011)
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parrish (US 2022/0382977 A1) – (abstract: Methods and systems are described that use artificial intelligence (AI)-based natural language processing (NLP) techniques to rapidly analyze, merge, and/or identify relationships between systems engineering artifacts (e.g., system requirements, system architecture descriptions, research requirements, risk assessments, etc.) to accelerate systems engineering program management, technical capability development, and acquisition initiatives associated with systems engineering projects.)
Burton (US 2019/0026697 A1) – (abstract: Provided is a process, including: obtaining a plurality of software-issue reports; obtaining a pull request; forming a software-issue graph having a plurality of nodes corresponding to the software-issue reports and a plurality of edges indicating relationships between the software-issue reports; determining that the pull request addresses a given software-issue report; selecting a subset of nodes in the software-issue graph addressed by the pull request; and designating the pull request as being associated with the plurality of software-issue reports corresponding to the selected subset of nodes.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights