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 .
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 11, 12, and 14 are independent.
Response to Amendment
The office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 05/22/2025. As
directed by the amendments claims 1, 11-12, and 14 are amended. Claim 6 and 13 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Here, independent claims 1, 11, 12 and 14 recite the features of "a recorder configured to record information indicating a fact that when, after calculation and update of a first certainty degree relative to the inference result" and "the certainty degree subsequently updated has changed to a second certainty degree smaller than the first certainty degree by the inference where the sensor data has been used." First, even if, arguendo, that the claim recites some judicial exceptions (not admitted by Applicant), the claims as a whole are not directed toward excluded subject matter because the claim recites the feature of "the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to record information ... to a storage." As such, the claims are not directed towards patent ineligible subject matter. Rather, the claims are directed toward practical applications of smart glasses which are a wearable device that superimposes and displays images in real space. The smart glasses receive, for example, an inference result from the inference apparatus and displays it. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims of the preset application are patent eligible.
Further, the allegedly "phenomenon" asserted by the Office with regards to claims 1, 11, 12 and 14 is rather directed to a step of obtaining and analyzing identification and sensor data. The Office has provided numerous examples in the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples that show claims reciting the application of Revised Step 2A to claims for obtaining and analyzing identification and behavioral data, while still being patent eligible. For example, claim 2 of Example 46 recites "automatically sending a control signal to the feed dispenser to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany." The Office states the claims are deemed to be patent eligible because the Office indicated that the claims "limitation [] does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany) to operate the feed dispenser." See Example 46. (Emphasis Added). […]
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim, considered as a whole, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claim includes structural and functional elements-such as the inferrer, at each time when the data to be used for the inference is determined, makes the inference using the data to be used for the inference and calculates and updates a certainty degree of an inference result ... wherein the certainty degree of the inference is automatically updated based on increasing the certainty degree when the sensor data is acquirable and normal data and decreasing the certainty degree when the sensor data is acquirable and not normal data-which operate together in a way that goes beyond merely performing the abstract idea on a computer. (Emphasis Added).[…]
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, "the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to ... to a storage." Is reciting an additional elements for adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The part of the limitation describing a determination of when to record information is addressed as a metal process in step 2A Prong 1. The claim does not recite the stated smart glass features, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Example 46 describes a different invention and it is unclear how the example relates to applicants claims. The amend limitation describing calculating and updating a certainty degree is describes a mental process. Overall, the claim limitations are a combination of mental steps under step 2A Prong 1, and additional elements under steps 2A Prong 2 & 2B as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Moreover, the Examiner appears to combine in piecemeal Koga, Murakami, Zhuravlev, Hirakawa, Sugiyama, Tezuka, Khoury and Rhee together by pulling discrete specific features from each reference to arrive at the alleged rejection without interpreting the claims as a whole. See MPEP 707.07(g), "Piecemeal Examination": […]
Specifically, the Examiner appears to have disregarded the interrelationship between the features admittedly not disclosed or suggested by the alleged primary reference of Koga, instead using a hindsight analysis to combine several unrelated features from different documents which are not compatible with each other.
Finally, Koga, Murakami, Sugiyama, Tezuka, Hirakawa, Khoury and Rhee do not remedy the deficiencies of Zhuravlev at least because Koga, Murakami, Sugiyama, Tezuka, Hirakawa, Khoury and Rhee (even if properly combinable with Zhuravlev, which is not admitted) do not disclose or suggest at least the above combination of features of amended claim 1. Therefore, Koga, Murakami, Sugiyama, Tezuka, Zhuravlev, Hirakawa, Khoury and Rhee, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest at least the above-discussed features of the current claims. […]
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, the rejection is based on all the references and would be obvious to combine. It is not clear from applicant’s arguments which reference or combination of references does not teach the claims or how exactly the combination it not compatible. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The amended limitations describe updating a certainty degree, support appears to be in para 0037 of the specification. Zhuravlev teaches the amended limitation when describing updated a confidence value. Para 0025, 0056-0058, Zhuravlev describes a confidence value that decreases and is below a threshold returning an error and indicating non-valid grapheme (i.e. not normal). Examiner notes this is similar to applicant’s spec para 0037.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a question acquirer” in claims 1, 11, and 14
“a question classifier” in claims 1, 8-9, 11, and 14
“a sensor classifier” in claims 1, 10-11, and 14
“a determiner” in claims 1-2, 11, and 14
“an inferrer” in claims 1 and 14
“a sensor data acquirer” in claim 2
“a data classifier” in claim 2-4
“a first outputter” in claim 5
“a changer” in claim 5
“a recorder” in claims 1, 11, and 14
“a second outputter” in claim 7
“a sensor identifier” in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 7-12, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-5, 7-10 are directed to an apparatus, claim 11 is directed to an apparatus, claim 12 is directed toward a method, and claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding Claim 1
2A Prong 1:
(This step for classifying is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
(This step for classifying is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
(This step for making a determination is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
(This step for making an inference is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
wherein (This step for making an inference is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
(This determining when to record information is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
wherein the certainty degree of the inference is (This step describes updating a certainty degree value is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation).)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
An inference apparatus for making an inference with respect to a phenomenon comprising … a question acquirer configured to … a question classifier configured to … a sensor classifier configured to … a determiner configured to … an inferrer configured to/the inferrer … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
a question acquirer configured to acquire a question related to the phenomenon; (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to … to a storage (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
automatically (This step is understood as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
An inference apparatus for making an inference with respect to a phenomenon comprising … a question acquirer configured to … a question classifier configured to … a sensor classifier configured to … a determiner configured to … an inferrer configured to/the inferrer … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
a question acquirer configured to acquire a question related to the phenomenon; (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(d)(ll)(i))))
the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to … to a storage (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
automatically (This step is understood as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea
are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are
well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination
of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. The claim recites: … classify whether the sensor data acquired by the sensor data acquirer is normal data or not based on a predetermined condition (Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper),
wherein Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: a sensor data acquirer configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)); … acquire the sensor data when the sensor data is acquirable (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)); a data classifier configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)); the determiner (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exceptions. A sensor data acquirer configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)); … acquire the sensor data when the sensor data is acquirable (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim)); a data classifier configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)); the determiner (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 incorporates the rejection of claim 2.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 2 are incorporated. The claim recites: wherein Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: the data classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exceptions. The data classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 incorporates the rejection of claim 2.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 2 are incorporated. The claim recites: wherein Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: the data classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exceptions. The data classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. The claim recites: Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper); wherein when the data to be used for the inference is changed by the changer, Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: a first outputter configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)); a changer configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exceptions. A first outputter configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)); MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim)); a changer configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of insignificant application to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)); a second outputter configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exceptions. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “presenting offers and gathering statistics” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim)); a second outputter configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. The claim recites: wherein Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: the question classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exceptions. The question classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. The claim recites: wherein Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: the question classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exceptions. The question classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 incorporates the rejection of claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 9 are incorporated. The claim recites: Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper); Mental process of evaluation and judgement which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: wherein the correspondence table further stores information indicating a type of a sensor in association with the information indicating the quantitativeness (Amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)); the inference apparatus further comprises a sensor identifier configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)); the sensor classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exceptions. Wherein the correspondence table further stores information indicating a type of a sensor in association with the information indicating the quantitativeness (Amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)); the inference apparatus further comprises a sensor identifier configured to … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)); the sensor classifier (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 comprises limitations similar to those of claim 1. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: An information processing apparatus comprising … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the following additional elements: An information processing apparatus comprising … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 comprises limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same rationale.
Claim 14:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 comprises limitations similar to those of claim 1. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites
the following additional elements: A non-transitory computer readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the following additional elements: A non-transitory computer readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising … (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al. Pub. No. US 20070239651 A1 (hereinafter Koga) in view of Murakami et al. Pub. No. JP 2017166960 A (hereinafter Murakami), and in further view of Zhuravlev Pub. No. US 20200134357 A1 (hereinafter Zhuravlev) and Hirakawa et al. Pub. No. US 20190035106 A1 (hereinafter Hirakawa).
Regarding Claim 1
Koga teaches: An inference apparatus for making an inference with respect to a phenomenon comprising:
a question acquirer configured to acquire a question related to the phenomenon ([Para 0051-0052, 0058-0059, Fig 4C, Fig 4D, and Fig 5] teach acquiring a next characteristic to determine if a characteristic quantity is present or absent in association with a defect-like phenomenon (i.e., a question related to the phenomenon));
a question classifier configured to classify whether the question is a qualitative question or a quantitative question; ([Para 0058 and Fig 5-6] teach referring to an input source defining table to determine whether the current characteristic is inputted by a user (i.e., qualitative) or sensor (i.e., quantitative))
a sensor classifier configured to classify whether sensor data is acquirable or not ([0058] teaches determining whether the characteristic is inputted by the user or the sensor (i.e., classify whether data is acquirable via sensor) using an input source defining table.)
a determiner configured to determine the sensor data as data to be used for the inference when the sensor data is acquirable and configured to determine input data by a user as the data to be used for the inference when the sensor data is unacquirable ([Para 0058-0060]);
an inferrer configured to make the inference corresponding to the phenomenon using the data determined by the determiner ([Para 0061]),
wherein the inferrer, at each time when the data to be used for the inference is determined, makes the inference using the data to be used for the inference([0059-0061]),
Koga does not explicitly teach: a sensor classifier configured to classify whether sensor data is acquirable or not when the question is the quantitative question; … and calculates and updates a certainty degree of an inference result, and the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to record information indicating a fact that when, after calculation and update of a first certainty degree relative to the inference result, the certainty degree subsequently updated has changed to a second certainty degree smaller than the first certainty degree by the inference where the sensor data has been used, the sensor data is likely to be erroneous, to a storage.
However, in the analogous art, Murakami teaches: a sensor classifier configured to classify whether sensor data is acquirable or not when the question is the quantitative question ([Para 0062] teaches determining whether sensor data is abnormal for temperature sensor confirmation (i.e., a quantitative question, as in [0029] of the present application’s specification) and, if it is abnormal, switching to manual input mode (i.e., classifying whether sensor data is acquirable for the quantitative question));
a determiner configured to determine the sensor data as data to be used for the inference when the sensor data is acquirable and configured to determine input data by a user as the data to be used for the inference when the sensor data is unacquirable ([Para 0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Koga with the above teaching of Murakami because doing so would lead to an expected increase in the ability to diagnose the presence or absence of abnormality during data collection and thereby perform reliable data collection (Murakami, [0007] and [0010]).
The combination of Koga and Murakami does not explicitly teach: … calculates and updates a certainty degree of an inference result, the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to record information indicating a fact that when, after calculation and update of a first certainty degree relative to the inference result, the certainty degree subsequently updated has changed to a second certainty degree smaller than the first certainty degree by the inference where the sensor data has been used, the sensor data is likely to be erroneous, to a storage, and wherein the certainty degree of the inference is automatically updated based on increasing the certainty degree when the sensor data is acquirable and normal data and decreasing the certainty degree when the sensor data is acquirable and not normal data.
However, in the analogous art, Zhuravlev teaches: … and calculates and updates a certainty degree of an inference result ([0025] teaches calculating confidence values for an input image for each class of the set of classes by the confidence function and selecting the highest confidence value as the value with which to compare against the threshold (i.e., updating the confidence value to be the highest confidence value)), and
the inference apparatus further comprises erroneous, ([0025] and [0053] teach that if a selected highest confidence value of an input image (i.e., a second certainty degree) falls below a certain threshold (i.e., a first certainty degree relative to the inference result), an error code is returned indicating that the input image is an invalid grapheme image (i.e., a fact that the sensor data is likely to be erroneous); [0004] and [0058] teach that in computing a confidence vector associated with the grapheme image, each element of the confidence vector reflects a distance, in the space of image features, between the feature vector and a center of a class of a set of classes, and [0043] further teaches that, for identifying invalid grapheme images, the threshold distance between the image feature representation and any class center may be dynamically configured (i.e., calculated and updated), which implies that, after being dynamically updated, the updated value of the dynamic threshold is then used to assess images being input (i.e. after calculation and update of a first certainty degree)), and
wherein the certainty degree of the inference is automatically updated based on increasing the certainty degree when the sensor data is acquirable and normal data and decreasing the certainty degree when the sensor data is acquirable and not normal data. ([Para 0025, 0056-0058] describes a confidence value that decreases and is below a threshold returning an error and indicating non-valid grapheme (i.e. not normal). Examiner notes this is similar to applicant’s spec para 0037.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koga and Murakami with the above teaching of Zhuravlev because doing so would lead to an expected improvement in the ability to recognize invalid or defective input data (Zhuravlev, [0019]).
The combination of Koga, Murakami, and Zhuravlev does not explicitly teach: the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to record information indicating a fact … to a storage.
However, in the analogous art, Hirakawa teaches that it was well-known at the time of the invention to have an inference apparatus wherein the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to record information … to a storage ([Para 0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koga, Murakami, and Zhuravlev with the above teaching of Hirakawa so that the inference apparatus further comprises a recorder configured to record information indicating a fact that the sensor data is likely to be erroneous to a storage.
Regarding Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Koga, Murakami, Zhuravlev, and Hirakawa teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above. Koga further teaches: a first outputter configured to output data that is determined by the determiner and is to be used for the inference ([0058-0061] and Figure 1 teach that the input unit refers to the input source defining table to determine whether the characteristic is inputted by the user or the sensor and that the data is provided (i.e., output) to the inference engine to be used for the inference); and
a changer configured to change the data to be used for the inference when a change instruction of the data to be used for the inference is accepted ([0058-0060] teaches that the next characteristic is determined to be inputted next (i.e., a change instruction) by the inference engine and the input source defining table is consulted to determine whether the characteristic is inputted by the user or the sensor (i.e., the data is changed)), wherein
when the data to be used for the inference is changed by the changer, the inferrer makes the inference using the data after the change ([0059-0061]).
Regarding Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Koga, Murakami, Zhuravlev, and Hirakawa teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above. Zhuravlev further teaches: a second outputter configured to output the information indicating a fact of presence of an error ([0025] teaches that the recognizer (i.e., second outputter) may return (i.e., output) an error code if the highest confidence value falls below a certain threshold indicating that the input image does not depict a valid grapheme (i.e., information indicating a fact of presence of an error)).
Regarding Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, it is a system claim comprising limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim comprising limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, it is a computer program product claim comprising limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same rationale. Koga further teaches the additional limitations of: A non-transitory computer readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute a process, the processing comprising … ([0016]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al. Pub. No. US 20070239651 A1