DETAILED ACTION
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1 and 13 are directed to a method. Claim 7 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention under step 1.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) under step 2.
Step 2A, Prong One: For example, the claims recite the following limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea absent the bolded limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
A policy evaluation method comprising:
when acquiring a first policy that is a policy including a conditional branch and a node connected by a directed edge, referring to a storage that stores a plurality of second policies and an evaluation value of each of the plurality of second policies, the evaluation value indicating a number of targets to which a plurality of targets is assigned to a node by the policy;
calculating a similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies; and
outputting an evaluation value of a similar policy that is a policy including the conditional branch and the node having the similarity measure equal to or greater than a threshold among the plurality of second policies, by a processor.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the referring includes, when the first policy and regional characteristics of the first policy are acquired, referring to the storage that further stores regional characteristics of each of the plurality of second policies, and
the calculating includes calculating a similarity measure including a similarity between the regional characteristics of the first policy and the regional characteristics of each of the plurality of second policies.
Claim 3 recites: further including first extracting a first feature by using the first policy and regional characteristics of the first policy, and second extracting a second feature by using the second policy and regional characteristics of the second policy, wherein the calculating includes calculating a similarity measure between the extracted first feature and the extracted second feature.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the regional characteristics are population distribution, demographics, traffic patterns, or facility deployment in a region, any combination thereof.
Claim 5 recites: further including calculating a confidence interval of the evaluation values of the plurality of second policies using the distribution of the calculated similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies.
Claim 6 recites: further including displaying the evaluation value of the similar policy and the similarity measure in association with each other on a screen. \
Claim 7 recites:. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
when acquiring a first policy that is a policy including a conditional branch and a node connected by a directed edge, refer to a storage that stores a plurality of second policies and an evaluation value of each of the plurality of second policies, the evaluation value indicating a number of targets to which a plurality of targets is assigned to a node by the policy;
calculate a similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies; and
output an evaluation value of a similar policy that is a policy including the conditional branch and the node having the similarity measure equal to or greater than a threshold among the plurality of second policies.
wherein the processor is further configured to when the first policy and regional characteristics of the first policy are acquired, refer to the storage that further stores regional characteristics of each of the plurality of second policies, and calculate a similarity measure including a similarity between the regional characteristics of the first policy and the regional characteristics of each of the plurality of second policies.
Claim 9 recites:. the processor is further configured to extract a first feature by using the first policy and regional characteristics of the first policy, extract a second feature by using the second policy and regional characteristics of the second policy, and calculate a similarity measure between the extracted first feature and the extracted second feature.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the regional characteristics are population distribution, demographics, traffic patterns, or facility deployment in a region, any combination thereof.
Claim 11 recites: wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a confidence interval of the evaluation values of the plurality of second policies using the distribution of the calculated similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies.
Claim 12 recites: wherein the processor is further configured to display the evaluation value of the similar policy and the similarity measure in association with each other on a screen.
Claim 13 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a policy evaluation program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising:
when acquiring a first policy that is a policy including a conditional branch and a node connected by a directed edge, referring to a storage that stores a plurality of second policies and an evaluation value of each of the plurality of second policies, the evaluation value indicating a number of targets to which a plurality of targets is assigned to a node by the policy;
calculating a similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies; and
outputting an evaluation value of a similar policy that is a policy including the conditional branch and the node having the similarity measure equal to or greater than a threshold among the plurality of second policies.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the referring includes, when the first policy and regional characteristics of the first policy are acquired, referring to the storage that further stores regional characteristics of each of the plurality of second policies, and the calculating includes calculating a similarity measure including a similarity between the regional characteristics of the first policy and the regional characteristics of each of the plurality of second policies.
Claim 15 recites: wherein the process further includes first extracting a first feature by using the first policy and regional characteristics of the first policy, and second extracting a second feature by using the second policy and regional characteristics of the second policy, wherein the calculating includes calculating a similarity measure between the extracted first feature and the extracted second feature.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the regional characteristics are population distribution, demographics, traffic patterns, or facility deployment in a region, any combination thereof.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the process further includes calculating a confidence interval of the evaluation values of the plurality of second policies using the distribution of the calculated similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the process includes displaying the evaluation value of the similar policy and the similarity measure in association with each other on a screen.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), such as functions involving fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). The BRI describes steps or functions of:
when acquiring a first policy that is a policy including a conditional branch and a node connected by a directed edge, referring to a storage that stores a plurality of second policies and an evaluation value of each of the plurality of second policies, the evaluation value indicating a number of targets to which a plurality of targets is assigned to a node by the policy, and calculating a similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the above bolded limitations noted in the claims as understood to be the additional limitations.
The claimed “processor” is similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between systems now available or later developed may be used, which is properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer.
Performance of a calculating function by a computing device amounts to data gathering and a mathematical function. Outputting data value involves an insignificant post solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Performing steps by a computing device or server or computer with a processor and memory merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers – see MPEP 2106.05(h). As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis. Calculating and outputting data have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Independent claim 7 is a system claim having a processor performing functions reciting similar limitations found in claims 1 and 13.
Positively reciting a circuitry does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
The claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for calculating and displaying data or outputting data.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic apparatus or computer. Accordingly, the 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.
The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components and performing generic functions without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide 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. Each claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US Pub. No. 2008/0077421 A1) in view of King et al. ( US 20040260634 A1 ).
As per claim 1, 7 and 13, Kobayashi et al disclose a policy management system and method for evaluating policies. See the abstract of Kobayashi et al. Accordingly, Kobayashi et al teach or disclose:
when acquiring a first policy that is a policy including a conditional branch and a node connected by a directed edge, referring to a storage that stores a plurality of second policies and an evaluation value of each of the plurality of second policies, the evaluation value indicating a number of targets to which a plurality of targets is assigned to a node by the policy (See paragraphs [0029], [0033] and [0041] of Kobayashi et al.);
calculating a similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies (see paragraphs [0045] and [0049] of Kobayashi et al); and
outputting an evaluation value of a similar policy that is a policy including the conditional branch and the node having the similarity measure equal to or greater than a threshold among the plurality of second policies, by a processor (see paragraphs [0010], [0040] and [0057] of Kabayashi et al.
Kobayashi et al do not explicitly state a conditional branch.
King et al disclose a system and method for displaying financial information which includes a financial statement having a set of financial accounts, a set of business processes associated with the set of financial accounts, and an financial statement manager for displaying the financial statement and the associated set of business processes. The financial statement manager is further adapted to display the financial statement and the set of risks associated with the set of financial accounts, the financial statement and a set of risk controls associated with the set of financial accounts, and/or the financial statement and a set of sample transactions associated with the set of financial accounts. See the abstract of King et al.
King et al provides using conditional branching
King et al state at paragraph [0034] “The workflow system 235 enables the implementation of business processes. A business process is a planned series of work activities with defined inputs and results. The workflow system allows business processes to be defined for any of the operations of a business enterprise. A business process can define the steps needed to complete an operation, the personnel responsible for performing each of the steps, and the inputs and outputs of each of the steps. Business processes can include conditional branches, so that different work activities are performed in response to the result of one or more previous work activity”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of King et al into the system and method of Kobayahi et al in order of “by means of conditional branches reflecting the each client's entered information or selected menus/information, thereby allowing different pages of data to be displayed according to the specific interests of an entity”.
As per claims 2, 8 and 14, Kobayashi et al teach or disclose wherein the referring includes, when the first policy and regional characteristics of the first policy are acquired, referring to the storage that further stores regional characteristics of each of the plurality of second policies, and the calculating includes calculating a similarity measure including a similarity between the regional characteristics of the first policy and the regional characteristics of each of the plurality of second policies. Applicant is directed to paragraphs [0041], [0049] and [0069] of Kobayashi et al.
As per claims 3, 9 and 15 Kobayashi et al teach or disclose first extracting a first feature by using the first policy and regional characteristics of the first policy, and second extracting a second feature by using the second policy and regional characteristics of the second policy, wherein the calculating includes calculating a similarity measure between the extracted first feature and the extracted second feature. See paragraphs [0041], [0049] and [0069] of Kobayashi et al.
As per claims 4, 10 and 16, Kobayashi et al teach or disclose wherein the regional characteristics are population distribution, demographics, traffic patterns, or facility deployment in a region, any combination thereof. Applicant is directed to paragraphs [0029] and [0070] of Kobayashi et al.
As per claims 5, 11 and 17, Kobayashi et al teach or disclose calculating a confidence interval of the evaluation values of the plurality of second policies using the distribution of the calculated similarity measure between the first policy and each of the plurality of second policies. Applicant is directed to paragraphs [0047] and [0064] of Kobayashi et al.
As per claims 6, 12 and 18, Kobayashi et al teach or disclose displaying the evaluation value of the similar policy and the similarity measure in association with each other on a screen. Applicant is directed to paragraphs [0057] and figure 11 of Kobayashi et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights