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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19477586 filed 10/22/2025 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2024/016127 , International Filing Date: 04/24/2024
claims foreign priority to 2023-075299, filed 04/28/2023
claims foreign priority to 2023-114904, filed 07/13/2023
claims foreign priority to 2023-171702, filed 10/02/2023
claims foreign priority to 2023-172060, filed 10/03/2023
Child data
None
Last updated by opsgusr on 10/22/2025 12:49:29
Foreign data
Priority number
Date
Country code
Country
Last modified user
Last modified timestamp
2023-075299
04/28/2023
JP
JAPAN
fsmith
06/16/2026 11:46:14
2023-114904
07/13/2023
JP
JAPAN
fsmith
06/16/2026 11:46:00
2023-171702
10/02/2023
JP
JAPAN
fsmith
06/16/2026 11:45:34
2023-172060
10/03/2023
JP
JAPAN
fsmith
06/16/2026 11:45:21
Last updated by fsmith on 06/16/2026 11:46:14
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-10
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025. The submission 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.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) 9 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 8 recited a program. Program is not one of the four statutory class.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-10 are directed to which belongs system and method which belong to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims recite “an acquisition step of acquiring a plurality of keywords evoked from the item via a large language model using a predetermined prompt including the input first
Information” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims recite a processor configured to execute to perform the steps. These are generic computer component and program which use to perform abstract ideas.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2, the limitation:
“The second information is a diagram visualizing relationships among themes of the plurality of documents” is only further defined what the second information is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 3, the limitation:
“The second information is a list of documents for each theme related to the item” is only further defined what the second information is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claim 4, the limitation:
“The first information includes information indicating a technical field” is only further what the first information is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 5, the limitation:
“the first information includes information indicating a search term”
As to claims 6, the limitation:
“A second reception step of receiving a selection for one particular theme from
among themes of the plurality of documents; and a second display control step of displaying third information related to the selected particular theme” is the process of providing information to the user.
As to claim 7, the limitation:
“The second display control step displays the third information according to the
user's level of knowledge” is the process to provide data to the user” is the process for displaying the information to the user.
As to claim 8, the limitation:
“The third information includes at least one of the following, each related to the
particular theme: statistical information on the plurality of documents; explanation of a technical term; summaries of the plurality of documents; information on a startup company; and information on a patent” is only the process for defining the third information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0173787 A1) in view of Tuchman et al. (Patent No. US 9,183,203 B1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses an information processing system comprising:
at least one processor (processors) (paragraph 0366), the processor configured to execute the steps comprising:
a first reception step of receiving first information, input by a user, regarding
an item that the user wishes to search for (borrower may input informal inquiries or vague details, which LLMs can interpret…) (paragraph 0120);
an acquisition step of acquiring a plurality of keywords evoked from the item
via a large language model using a predetermined prompt including the input first
information (while most people are familiar with typing commands directly into a computer, interacting with a large language model (LLM) typically involves using prompts that are broken down into smaller units called tokens. Those tokens can be segments of the original input prompt, such as individual words…) (paragraph 0206); and
Kim does not explicitly disclose a first display control step of displaying, based on the plurality of keywords and a database storing information on a plurality of documents, second information in which the item is organized for each theme of the plurality of documents.
Touchman disclose a first display control step of displaying, based on the plurality of keywords and a database storing information on a plurality of documents, second information in which the item is organized for each theme of the plurality of documents (presents results to the user via GDMA outputs, which, in various embodiments, may include numerical results and/or statistical relationships among entities or terms as determined based on analysis of corpus of electronic document…) (col. 2, lines 3-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before, the affective filing date of the instant application to include a first display control step of displaying, based on the plurality of keywords and a database storing information on a plurality of documents, second information in which the item is organized for each theme of the plurality of documents as disclosed by Touchman in order to provide organized results.
As to claim 2, Touchman discloses the information processing system according to Claim 1, wherein: the second information is a diagram visualizing relationships among themes of the plurality of documents (presents results to the user via GDMA outputs, which, in various embodiments, may include numerical results and/or statistical relationships among entities or terms as determined based on analysis of corpus of electronic document…) (col. 2, lines 3-18).
As to claim 3, Touchman discloses the information processing system according to Claim 1 or Claim 2, wherein: the second information is a list of documents for each theme related to the Item (presents results to the user via GDMA outputs, which, in various embodiments, may include numerical results and/or statistical relationships among entities or terms as determined based on analysis of corpus of electronic document…) (col. 2, lines 3-18).
As to claim 5, Touchman discloses the information processing system according to any one of Claims 1 to 4, wherein: the first information includes information indicating a search term (list of terms) (col. 2, lines 15).
As to claim 7, Kim discloses the information processing system according to Claim 6, wherein: the second display control step displays the third information according to the
user's level of knowledge (discover data types) (fig. 10).
As to claim 8, Touchman discloses the information processing system according to Claim 6 or Claim 7, wherein: the third information includes at least one of the following, each related to the particular theme: statistical information on the plurality of documents (statistical relationship between entities) (col. 2, line 5); explanation of a technical term; summaries of the plurality of documents; information on a startup company; and information on a patent.
As to claim 9, Kim discloses an information processing program (instructions) (paraph 0018) causing a computer to execute the steps (… perform number of steps) (paragraph 0018) implemented by the information processing system according to any one of Claims 1 to 8.
As to claim 10, Kim discloses an information processing method comprising: the steps (… perform number of steps) (paragraph 0018) executed by the information processing system (processors) (paragraph 0018) according to any one of Claims 1 to 8.
6. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0173787 A1) in view of Tuchman et al. (Patent No. US 9,183,203 B1) and further in view of Ahn et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0054170).
As to claim 4, Kim discloses the information processing system according to any one of Claims 1 to 3 excepting for the first information includes information indicating a technical field. However, Ahn discloses the first information includes information indicating a technical field (the F-term code classifies patent documents by a technical theme (or, a technical field) and then classified techniques of a corresponding theme by various viewpoints such as problem, solution, application field) (paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Kim to include the first information includes information indicating a technical field as disclosed by Ahn in order use the information for category use for search.
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0173787 A1) in view of Tuchman et al. (Patent No. US 9,183,203 B1) and further in view of Danninger (Pub. No. US 2008/0148183 A1).
As to claim 6, Kim discloses the information processing system according to any one of Claims 1 to 5 excepting for wherein the processor is configured to further execute: a second reception step of receiving a selection for one particular theme from among themes of the plurality of documents; and a second display control step of displaying third information related to the selected particular theme. However, Danninger discloses wherein the processor is configured to further execute: a second reception step of receiving a selection for one particular theme from among themes of the plurality of documents (the user is provided with the opportunity to select a data theme 502a (show fig. 5) from among a plurality of available data themes) (paragraph 0023); and a second display control step of displaying third information related to the selected particular theme (by selecting the data theme 502a from among the plurality data theme 502a….) (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a second reception step of receiving a selection for one particular theme from among themes of the plurality of documents; and a second display control step of displaying third information related to the selected particular theme as disclosed Danninger in order to provide data themed data to user.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights