A Japanese Office Action stating that the claimed subject matter “does not fall under an invention” cites the main paragraph of Article 29(1). It is the Japanese counterpart of eligibility rejections elsewhere, but the test is different: the question is whether the claim is a creation of a technical idea utilizing a law of nature, and for software the JPO asks a specific, answerable question — is the information processing concretely realized using hardware resources? This article explains the test and how to redraft a claim to pass it.
Table of Contents
Art. 2(1) of the Patent Act defines an invention as a highly advanced creation of a technical idea utilizing a law of nature; Art. 29(1) main paragraph grants a patent only to one who has made an invention that is industrially applicable. A claim that fails the definition is rejected under Art. 29(1) main paragraph without any examination of prior art — which is why this ground appears alone, or as “Ground 1” ahead of the substantive grounds.
| Category (Examination Guidelines, Part III Ch. 1) | Example given |
|---|---|
| Laws other than natural laws | Economic laws |
| Artificial arrangements | Rules of a game as such |
| Mathematical formulas | — |
| Human mental activities | — |
| Subject matter using only the above | A method of doing business as such |
The Guidelines direct the examiner to judge the claim as a whole. Even if some matters specifying the invention utilize a law of nature, the claim is not an invention if, taken as a whole, it does not; conversely, even if some matters do not utilize a law of nature, the claim is an invention if, taken as a whole, it does. This is why adding a generic “computer” to a business scheme rarely helps, while a claim that describes a concrete technical implementation can contain non-technical elements without failing.
For computer software-related inventions, Annex B, Chapter 1 of the Examination Handbook supplies the operative test: the claim is an invention where information processing by the software is concretely realized using hardware resources — in other words, where software and hardware cooperate so that a specific information processing apparatus (or method of operating one) suited to the intended use is built. What the examiner looks for in the claim:
The claim that fails
“A method comprising: receiving an order; determining a discount according to rule X; and notifying the customer” — with “by a computer” attached — recites an artificial arrangement executed on a generic machine. Nothing in the claim shows software and hardware cooperating in a specific way. It is rejected under Art. 29(1) main paragraph however novel rule X may be.
| From | To |
|---|---|
| “A method of … comprising steps A, B, C” | “An information processing apparatus comprising a receiving unit that acquires … data from …; a processing unit that … the data by …; and an output unit that …” |
| “by a computer” as a preamble | Each step tied to a recited hardware element and to the data it handles |
| A rule or formula as the claimed contribution | The technical means by which the rule is applied to concrete data to produce a concrete result |
| A business outcome (“increasing sales”) | A technical effect of the processing (“reducing the data volume transmitted”, “shortening the response time”) |
All of this must be drawn from the original disclosure (Art. 17-2(3)). Specifications drafted for other offices often describe the implementation in the detailed description without claiming it; in that case the amendment is available. If the description contains only the scheme, the case is difficult.
Business-related inventions are examined under the same test: the commercial idea is not patentable as such, but its implementation by specific information processing using hardware resources can be. AI-related claims follow the same logic — a trained model or a training method is claimed by the data handled, the processing performed and the hardware on which it runs, not by the mathematical idea alone. The JPO publishes worked examples for both in the Handbook annexes. For deadlines and extensions on the Office Action itself, see the Office Action hub; for the substantive grounds that usually follow an eligibility rejection, our inventive step guide.
FOR FOREIGN COUNSEL & APPLICANTS
Send us the Office Action or the case details — EVORIX handles national phase entry, patent administrator appointment and Office Action responses for overseas applicants. Free assessment and a fixed quote within 3-5 business days.
Related Articles
Disclaimer
This article provides general information about Japanese patent practice as of September 2026 and does not constitute legal advice. Periods, fees and examination practice may change, and the deadline for a specific case depends on the documents actually issued. Please consult a qualified Japanese patent attorney about your specific matter.
Sources