Information Processing for Rejection-Notice Argument Cases

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing patent application systems often result in scope narrowing or final rejection due to inadequate handling of rejection notices, leading to potential loss of intellectual property rights scope and increased procedural costs.

Innovation Solution

An information processing apparatus and method that provides argument case information based on past applications granted without amendment, using person-in-charge information to extract relevant past applications and generate argument case information for similar scenarios, aiding in strategic decision-making.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the scope of claims is amended in consideration of rejection notices, then the application can overcome rejection reasons and aim for grant, but the scope is narrowed and the applicant may suffer a great loss

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprobability of grantVSAvoidscope of claims

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSArea of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis of rejection notices and generates suggested amendments before the applicant responds. By pre-identifying the most critical rejection reasons and proposing targeted claim modifications, the system enables applicants to make informed decisions about which amendments are necessary, potentially avoiding unnecessary scope narrowing while still overcoming rejection grounds.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system provides feedback by analyzing the relationship between rejection notices and successful patent grants. It identifies patterns in which amendments led to successful outcomes and presents this information to applicants, enabling them to make evidence-based decisions about claim scope modifications rather than reacting blindly to rejection reasons.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If amendment is made in response to reasons for rejection, then the application can be granted, but procedural costs and time are increased

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprobability of grantVSAvoidprocedural time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis of rejection notices and generates suggested amendments before the applicant responds. By pre-identifying the most critical rejection reasons and proposing targeted claim modifications, the system enables applicants to make informed decisions about which amendments are necessary, potentially avoiding unnecessary scope narrowing while still overcoming rejection grounds.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system extracts only the essential information from rejection notices and successful patent records that is relevant to generating useful amendment suggestions. By filtering out unnecessary details and focusing on the core rejection reasons and successful argument patterns, the system reduces the time needed for analysis while maintaining the quality of recommendations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

3Loss of information

If information on past applications is searched and analyzed, then useful reference information can be obtained, but the complexity of the system increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveavailability of reference informationVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system extracts only the essential information from rejection notices and successful patent records that is relevant to generating useful amendment suggestions. By filtering out unnecessary details and focusing on the core rejection reasons and successful argument patterns, the system reduces the time needed for analysis while maintaining the quality of recommendations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses a unified database structure and processing framework that handles multiple types of patent data (rejection notices, successful grants, argument patterns) through the same mechanisms. This multi-functional approach allows the system to analyze diverse information sources using consistent methods, reducing overall system complexity while maintaining comprehensive analytical capabilities.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS20250322471A1Information processing apparatus, method, and program

Publication Date: 2025.10.16 FUJIFILM CORP

AI summary

An information processing apparatus receives person-in-charge information of a certain application, person-in-charge information for specifying a person in charge who has performed examination of an application relating to an intellectual property right for which a notice of rejection has been received, or identification information for specifying the application for which the notice of rejection has been received, extracts the person-in-charge information for specifying the person in charge who has examined the application for which the notice of rejection has been received based on the identification information in a case where the identification information has been received, and generates argument case information related to a specific application that has been granted only by argument without amendment or correction of translation errors for a notice of reasons for rejection immediately before the grant among past applications for which the person in charge has performed examination based on the person-in-charge information.