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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 10/23/2025.
Claims 1 – 13 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1 - 13 are directed to a " method, a device, and a non-transitory recording medium with instructions and processor…", and therefore, directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The independent claims 1, 10, 12, include the following limitations that are directed to an abstract idea:
“first extracting, from a set of data including a value of each of a plurality of explanatory variables and a value of an objective variable, a specific condition having a specific correlation with the objective variable among conditions for at least a part of the plurality of explanatory variables”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The Act of “extracting… a specific condition” is merely a data manipulation process. A human can easily perform this exact process mentally or with pen and paper. The text describes the mathematical or logical sorting of data (identifying a "specific condition" based on a "specific correlation" between "explanatory variables" and an "objective variable"), which is generic data filtering based on mathematical correlation. See Court case in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
“second extracting a set of combinations of a value of a predetermined explanatory variable and a value of the objective variable indicated by predetermined variable relationship information from the set of data based on the specific condition” as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The act of looking at a dataset and pulling out pairs that match a "specific condition" is a process that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with a pencil and paper. Extracting combinations of "explanatory variables" and "objective variables" based on "relationship information" is inherently an exercise in mathematical modeling, statistics, or database filtering. Merely collecting, analyzing, and displaying information without a specific improvement to a technical field or computer functionality is treated as an abstract concept. See Court case in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
“dividing the set of combinations into a first group and a second group” as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The Acts of Categorizing, sorting, grouping, or dividing items (like mathematical combinations or data sets) can typically be performed entirely in the human mind or using pen and paper. (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC (2018): The Federal Circuit confirmed that claims focused purely on statistical calculations and mathematical analysis of financial data remain ineligible abstract ideas).
“comparing positive and negative signs of a first coefficient indicating a relationship between the predetermined explanatory variable and the objective variable represented by a combination of the first group with positive and negative signs of a second coefficient indicating a relationship between the predetermined explanatory variable and the objective variable represented by a combination of the second group”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The Act of “comparing the positive or negative signs of statistical coefficients (slopes or correlations) across different groupings of explanatory (independent) and objective (dependent) variables” falls directly into the mathematical concept or a mental process. It is an algorithmic or mathematical comparison of data values (signs of coefficients). Comparing whether two signs match or differ can be performed entirely in the human mind or with a pencil and paper. (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC (2018): The Federal Circuit confirmed that claims focused on statistical calculations and mathematical analysis of financial data remain ineligible abstract ideas).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements such as:
“wherein the predetermined variable relationship information indicates a relationship between the predetermined explanatory variable and the objective variable in data processing similar to data processing on the set of data”, is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is directed at standard data manipulation, taking statistical insights from one group and applying or comparing them to another, without limiting it to a specific improvement to computer hardware. This does not provide integration into a practical application.
The claim recites the term “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein an analysis program that causes a computer to execute a process”, and “An analysis device comprising: a processor” which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. These components are just generic, off-the-shelf computer hardware acting as a tool to execute the abstract concept.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In this case, using a “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein an analysis program that causes a computer to execute a process”, and “An analysis device comprising: a processor” are considered conventional or routine computer functions. Because the additional elements amount to nothing more than routine data-gathering and standard computer implementation, they fail to provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not providing significantly more than the
judicial exception. Looking at the claim, as a whole, does not change this conclusion and
therefore, the claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims 2, 11, 13 includes “wherein the process further includes generating specific variable relationship information indicating a relationship between the predetermined explanatory variable and the objective variable in the data processing on the set of data by using the set of combinations when the positive and negative signs of the first coefficient are different from the positive and negative signs of the second coefficient”, is description of a mental process. The Act of "generating variable relationship information" based on data processing constitutes manipulating data and performing an informational step that qualifies as an abstract mental process or generic method of organizing human activity.
The dependent claim 3 includes “wherein the process further includes generating explanatory information on a difference between the specific variable relationship information and the predetermined variable relationship information” is considered as metal process/Data manipulation. The act of "Generating explanatory information" based on comparing two sets of information is an act of data comparison and analysis. Because a human could look at "specific relationship A," compare it to "predetermined relationship B," identify the variance, and write an explanation using a pen and paper. Identifying a "difference" between two mathematical models or "variable relationships" amounts to basic mathematical calculation or statistical comparison.
The dependent claim 4, includes “wherein the predetermined variable relationship information is a volcano plot or a conditional causal graph, and the specific variable relationship information is a volcano plot” is considered as metal process/Data manipulation as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Both a “volcano plot” and a “conditional causal graph” are statistical and mathematical models. Simply manipulating, categorizing, or defining the relationships between variables mathematically falls squarely under ineligible mathematical relationships or concepts. The act of recognizing that "predetermined variable relationship information" is a volcano plot is essentially a data collection, sorting, or filtering step.
The dependent claim 5, includes “wherein the specific correlation indicates that an index indicating strength of a causal relationship between any of the plurality of explanatory variables and the objective variable is equal to or greater than a reference value in a causal graph generated from a condition for at least a part of the plurality of explanatory variables” is considered as mathematical concept as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Evaluating an index against a reference value (a standard mathematical comparison/threshold check). Quantifying the strength of a relationship between explanatory and objective variables using a causal graph (a mathematical model or algorithm).
The dependent claim 6, includes “wherein the second extracting includes: extracting, from the set of data, data that satisfies a condition for an explanatory variable other than the predetermined explanatory variable among the explanatory variables included in the specific condition; and extracting a combination of a value of the predetermined explanatory variable and a value of the objective variable from data that satisfies the condition for the explanatory variable other than the predetermined explanatory variable” is description of a mental process and mathematical concept, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Calculating relationships between statistical inputs (explanatory variables) and outputs (objective variables). The logic of "if data matches condition X, pull out variable Y" is a step-by-step filtering process that can conceptually be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
The dependent claim 7, includes “ wherein the process further includes selecting the predetermined variable relationship information from a plurality of pieces of variable relationship information, wherein each of the plurality of pieces of variable relationship information is generated from the set of data including the value of each of the plurality of explanatory variables and the value of the objective variable, and represents a relationship between any of the explanatory variables and the objective variable” is mental process/organizing human activity. The step of "selecting the predetermined variable relationship information from a plurality of pieces..." is considered a standard data manipulation technique. Simply choosing one piece of statistical data over another based on logical rules is an abstract mathematical or cognitive exercise.
The dependent claim 8, includes “wherein the process further includes updating the set of data so that data including the value of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, the value of the objective variable, and the value of the predetermined explanatory variable is included in the set of data when the value of the predetermined explanatory variable is not included in the set of data, wherein the second extracting includes extracting the set of combinations from the updated set of data” describes a mental process and mathematical process. The terms “explanatory variables,” “objective variables,” and “extracting combinations” describe statistical modeling, data imputation (handling missing values), or regression analysis.
The dependent claim 9, includes “wherein the predetermined variable relationship information includes a first threshold for the predetermined explanatory variable, and the first extracting includes extracting a condition for at least a part of the plurality of explanatory variables from the set of data based on a second threshold for the predetermined explanatory variable, and when a difference between the second threshold and the first threshold is larger than a predetermined value, the process further includes changing the second threshold so that the difference between the second threshold and the first threshold is smaller than the predetermined value” describes a mental process and mathematical process, which can be performed by human using paper and pen.
Claims 1 - 11 , Applicant claims the abstract idea on a device with general circuitry and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium with instruction to carry-out the method as in claim 12, without adding further limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (See Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (2025)). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to "extracting… dividing… comparing…" do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are not patent eligible.
The following are some related arts:
Takada et al (U.S. 11,216,741 B2) discloses a regression model constructor is configured to construct a regression model that represents an objective variable with a plurality of explanatory variables that correspond to any one of a plurality of features and with a regression coefficient of the plurality of explanatory variables by performing regression analysis using analysis target data including the plurality of features with one of the plurality of features as the objective variable (See abstract, claim 1).
Okubo et al (U.S. 2020/0285998 A1) discloses The sparse modeling processing unit acquires individual importance degrees for each of explanatory variable candidates, the individual importance degrees being acquired by using respective sparse modeling methods different from each other, each of the sparse modeling methods taking input data including a specified objective variable in a learning model used for industrial activity and the explanatory variable candidates that are candidates for an explanatory variable for explaining the specified objective variable. The selection unit calculates a comprehensive importance degree for each of the explanatory variable candidates based on the individual importance degrees of each of the explanatory variable candidates, and selects an explanatory variable of the learning model from among the explanatory variable candidates based on the comprehensive importance degree (See abstract, claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 pm.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights