DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 7/8/2021. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-final.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C.
120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The effective filing date (EFD) is 8/28/2020.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, (analogous to claim 14 and 15)
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“an acquisition process of acquiring an inference route that defines an order of a plurality of pieces of knowledge that form a hypothesis;” – The limitation is directed to a process of acquiring an inference route that will determine an order of group of certain knowledge to form a hypothesis. The limitation is directed to a process that can be performed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, judgement, as well as aid of pen and paper, to complete.
“a generation process of generating a first search query for searching for a second destination node from the second node, on a basis of the first node in the inference route, a first destination node from the first node, and a first edge that links the first node, and the first destination node;” – The limitation is directed to a process of generating search queries for second destination nodes based on first destination nodes as well as its first edge linked to the first node. The processes of generating search queries in its recitation is an abstract idea, because generating queries based on past/collected data is a process that can be performed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, judgement, as well as aid of pen and paper, to complete.
“a search process of searching the database for particular first relational knowledge data corresponding to the first search query generated in the generation process; and” – This limitation is directed to a process of searching a database for particular data that corresponds to the first search query. The limitation is directed to a process that can be performed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, judgement, as well as aid of pen and paper, to complete.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“A creation assisting method executed by a creation assisting device executes comprising a processor that executes a program, and a storage device that stores the program, wherein… the processor executes:” – The limitation recites that the instructions following what is recited will be merely instructed/applied onto the computer, and therefore it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“an updating process of updating a scenario that embodies the hypothesis in a case that a second node corresponding to a first node in an inference route acquired in the acquisition process is added to the scenario;” –The limitation recites a process for updating a scenario of a possible instance (hypotheses) where nodes correspond to one another. The limitation recites an insignificant, extra-solution activity that cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, merely updating data that corresponds to gathered data is directed to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (WURC) that cannot provide significant more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
“an output process of outputting the particular first relational knowledge data found through the search in the search process.” – The limitation recites outputting data during the search process. Inputting/outputting data that has been gathered is an insignificant, extra-solution activity that cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, inputting/outputting data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (WURC) that cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, claim 1 is non-patent eligible. Claims 14 and 15 are analogous to claim 1, and therefore will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, (analogous to claim 9).
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“The creation assisting device according to claim 1, wherein in the generation process, the processor generates a second search query for searching for a fourth destination node from the second destination node on a basis of the first destination node in the inference route, a third destination node from the first destination node, and a third edge linking the first destination node, and the third destination node,” – The limitation is directed to a process of generating search queries for searching for other destination nodes based from second destination nodes as well as its third edge linked to the first node. The processes of generating search queries in its recitation is an abstract idea, because generating queries based on past/collected data is a process that can be performed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, judgement, as well as aid of pen and paper, to complete.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“in the search process, the processor searches the database for particular second relational knowledge data corresponding to the second search query generated in the generation process” – The limitation recites a processor to search the database for particular data that corresponds to the search queries. The limitation is directed to merely instructing the computer (processor) to apply the similar process that was considered to be an abstract idea by way of mental process in claim 1. Therefore this limitation cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 210.065(f)).
“in the output process, the processor outputs the particular first relational knowledge data, and the number of pieces of the particular second relational knowledge data.” – The limitation recites to the processor outputting particular knowledge data, as well as the number of pieces related to the second set of relational knowledge data. The limitation is directed to mere data gathering, and cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, the act of inputting/outputting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, claim 2 is non-patent eligible. Claim 9 are analogous to claim 2, and therefore will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“the processor executes a computation process of computing statistical data related to the number of pieces of the particular second relational knowledge data found through the search of each of the second search queries, and” – The limitation is directed to a processor to execute computing statistic data for pieces of particular knowledge data found through search queries. The limitation is directed to involving a mathematical concept to perform the task, therefore the limitation directed to math.
Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B
“The creation assisting device according to claim 2, wherein the processor executes an extraction process of extracting a plurality of substrings including part of a string of knowledge defined for the second destination node from the string;” – The limitation recites a processor executing instructions to apply a extracting process for a plurality of substrings. The limitation recites mere instructions of how the processor will apply the following elements in a high level of generality, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“in the output process, the processor outputs the particular first relational knowledge data, and the statistical data computed in the computation process.” -- The limitation recites to the processor outputting particular knowledge data, as well as the number of pieces related to the second set of relational knowledge data. The limitation is directed to mere data gathering, and cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, the act of inputting/outputting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, claim 3 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The creation assisting device according to claim 1, wherein the relational knowledge data has related information of the relational knowledge data and in the output process, the processor outputs the particular second relational knowledge data including the related information.” – The limitation recites mere further limiting elements of the relational knowledge data by stating it has related information, and that the processor during the output process will further include the related information, which cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claim 4 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, (analogous to claim 11)
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The creation assisting device according to claim 4, wherein the related information is document data related to a reference to be a ground of the relational knowledge data.” – The limitation is directed to the related information that was introduced in claim 4 will further related to a reference of the relational knowledge data. The limitation doesn’t amount to no more than mere instructions, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claim 5 is non-patent eligible. Claim 11 is analogous to claim 5, and will face the same rejection as set forth above.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The creation assisting device according to claim 4, wherein the related information is information about access to a reference to be a ground of the relational knowledge data.” – The limitation is very similar to claim 5 above, except the difference of further reciting that the related information is information about access to a reference. The limitation doesn’t amount to no more than mere instructions, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claim 6 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The creation assisting device according to claim 5, wherein in the output process, the processor outputs a string representing knowledge defined for each of the second node, and the second destination node in the document data, and a string representing relevance defined for the first edge such that the string representing the knowledge, and the string representing the relevance can be displayed in a more noticeable format.”—The limitation recites that during the output process, the processor will output strings that represent knowledge for nodes, and other strings that represent data. The limitation recites mere further limiting of the outputs from the processor to a particular field of use/environment, and cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claim 7 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The creation assisting device according to claim 1, wherein in the updating process, the processor updates the scenario in a case that, in the scenario, the second node, and the second destination node in the particular first relational knowledge data are linked by a second edge corresponding to the first edge.” – The limitation recites a process for updating a scenario of a possible instance (hypotheses) where nodes correspond to one another. The limitation recites an insignificant, extra-solution activity that cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, merely updating data that corresponds to gathered data is directed to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (WURC) that cannot provide significant more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, claim 8 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, (partially similar to 4).
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“in the generation process, the processor generates the third search query on a basis of the first destination node in the inference route, the third destination node, the third edge, and the related information included in the particular first relational knowledge data” – The limitation is directed to a process of generating search queries for searching for other destination nodes based from second destination nodes as well as its third edge linked to the first node. The processes of generating search queries in its recitation is an abstract idea, because generating queries based on past/collected data is a process that can be performed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, judgement, as well as aid of pen and paper, to complete.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“the relational knowledge data has related information of the relational knowledge data, in the output process, the processor outputs the particular second relational knowledge data, and the related information.” -- The limitation recites mere further limiting elements of the relational knowledge data by stating it has related information, and that the processor during the output process will further include the related information, which cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claim 10 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“The creation assisting device according to claim 10, wherein in the generation process, the processor decides relational knowledge data corresponding to the third search query as the particular second relational knowledge data on a basis of a similarity between related information of the third search query, and related information of the relational knowledge data corresponding to the third search query.” – The limitation is directed to the processor to decide (generate) data that corresponds to a search query to be the second relational knowledge data based on the similarity to other data and search queries. The limitation is directed to a process that can be done using evaluation, judgment, and observation, with aid of pen and paper, to complete the task. Therefore, the limitation is directed to a mental process.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Therefore, claim 12 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 1: The claim is directed to the use of a device, which falls under the category of machine. The claim satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The creation assisting device according to claim 1, wherein the processor executes a storage process of deciding a registration target scenario by selecting a node group, and an edge group linking the node group from the scenario, “and storing the registration target scenario in the storage device.”– The limitation recites that the processor is merely instructed to apply a storage process of deciding a registration target scenario by selecting a group, linking edge groups to the node group. Furthermore, the limitation recites a storing the data of the registration target scenario onto the computer (storage device).The limitation is recited in a high level of generality, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claim 13 is non-patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections
under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise
available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in patent issued, under section 151, or in an application for patent
published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application as the case may be, names
another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et. al US10437867B2 by Hashimoto et. al. (referred herein as Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches:
A creation assisting device comprising a processor that executes a program, and a storage device that stores the program, wherein the creation assisting device can access a database that stores a set of relational knowledge data including two nodes defining knowledge, and an edge that defines a relationship between the two nodes, and links the two nodes (Hashimoto, col 55, lines 15-35] “A scenario generating apparatus, comprising: a first non-transitory computer readable medium for storing a large number of causality phrase pairs, wherein: each causality phrase pair of said large number of causality phrase pairs includes two phrases comprising a cause phrase and a result phrase of causality; and each phrase includes a noun and a predicate template following the noun; and a processor for generating a scenario formed of a series of phrases, by linking those of the phase pairs stored in said first non-transitory computer readable medium which are linkable as causality, the processor configured to generate the scenario by: for each of said large number of causality phrase pairs, searching said first non-transitory computer readable medium for a causality phrase pair having a cause phrase with causal consistency with the result phrase of the causality phrase pair;” wherein the examiner interprets “each causality phrase pair includes two phrases comprising a cause phrase and a result phrase” to be the same as “two nodes defining knowledge,” and “linking those of the phrase pairs... which are linkable as causality” to be the same as “an edge that defines a relationship between the two nodes, and links the two nodes”. The examiner further interprets “phase pairs stored in said first non-transitory computer readable medium” to be the same as “storage device that stores the program … stores a set of relational knowledge data”)
the processor executes: an acquisition process of acquiring an inference route that defines an order of a plurality of pieces of knowledge that form a hypothesis; ([Hashimoto, col 44, lines 25, 50] “A causality hypothesis generator 412 shown in FIG. 13 by a computer…” and [Hashimoto, page 21, col 2, 34-40] “linking the searched out causality phrase pair to the tail of the scenario…thereby generating a scenario” wherein the examiner interprets “hypothesis generator... generating a causality hypothesis” of linked data to be the same as “plurality of pieces of knowledge that form a hypothesis” as both defines a relationship between the two nodes, and links the two nodes and forming a hypothesis.)
an updating process of updating a scenario that embodies the hypothesis in a case that a second node corresponding to a first node in an inference route acquired in the acquisition process is added to the scenario; ([Hashimoto, page 21, col 2, 35-40] “The linking means continues linking, starting from the initial scenario designated by the initial scenario designating means, a causality phrase pair to the tail of the scenario until a predetermined end condition is satisfied, thereby generating a scenario.” wherein the examiner interprets “continues linking... a causality phrase pair to the tail of the scenario” to be the same as “updating a scenario that embodies the hypothesis in a case that a second node corresponding to a first node in an inference route... is added to the scenario”, as both are directed to incrementally modifying the scenario by appending a new knowledge element that maintains the logical sequence defined by the hypothesis.)
a generation process of generating a first search query for searching for a second destination node from the second node, on a basis of the first node in the inference route, a first destination node from the first node, and a first edge that links the first node, and the first destination node; a search process of searching the database for particular first relational knowledge data corresponding to the first search query generated in the generation process; ([Hashimoto, page 21, col 2, lines 20-26] “searching the phrase pair storage means, for each of the large number of causality phrase pairs, for a causality phrase pair having a cause phrase with causal consistency with the result phrase of the causality phrase pair and for generating join information for joining causality phrase pairs;” wherein the examiner interprets “searching the phrase pair storage means... for a causality phrase pair having a cause phrase with causal consistency with the result phrase... and for generating join information” to be the same as generating a first search query based on the first node, first destination node, and first edge, and using that query to search for particular first relational knowledge data .)
an output process of outputting the particular first relational knowledge data found through the search in the search process. ([Hashimoto, Fig 15] “Output all causality hypotheses to causality hypothesis DB 416”, wherein the examiner interprets “output all causality hypotheses to causality hypotheses DB” to be the same “outputting … relational knowledge data” as they both store the causal relationships.). Claims 14 and 15 are analogous to claim 1, and therefore will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto teaches:
The creation assisting device according to claim 1, wherein in the generation process, the processor generates a second search query for searching for a fourth destination node from the second destination node on a basis of the first destination node in the inference route, a third destination node from the first destination node, and a third edge linking the first destination node, and the third destination node, ([Hashimoto, col 48, lines 5 - 23] “...join relation generator 606 determines whether or not an ordered word pair consisting of a noun (first noun) included in a result phrase of a certain causality phrase pair and a noun (second noun) included in a cause phrase of another causality phrase pair is stored in word pair DB 402. If this word pair is stored in word pair DB 402, it is considered that there is a link representing a semantic relation of the word pair between the result phrase including the first noun and the cause phrase including the second noun.” wherein the examiner interprets “an ordered word pair consisting of a noun (first noun) included in a result phrase of a certain causality phrase pair and a noun (second noun) included in a cause phrase of another causality phrase pair” to be the same as a second search query for searching for a fourth destination node from the second destination node, and “a link representing a semantic relation of the word pair between the result phrase including the first noun and the cause phrase including the second noun” to be the same as a third edge linking the first destination node, and the third destination node, as both are directed to forming a semantic relationship that guides the generation of a query from one node to another within a relational structure.)
in the search process, the processor searches the database for particular second relational knowledge data corresponding to the second search query generated in the generation process ([Hashimoto, col 37, lines 17-25] “…causality joining unit 612 successively following up and joining causality phrase pairs using an arbitrary causality phrase pair stored in causality phrase pair DB 70 as a start point, using the join information stored in causality phrase pair DB 70 and thereby generating social scenario candidates”, wherein the examiner interprets “successively following up and joining causality phrase pairs… using the join information” to be the same as “searches the database for particular second relational knowledge data… generated in the generation process”, as both are directed to retrieving relational data elements from a database using previously derived query-like paired information)
in the output process, the processor outputs the particular first relational knowledge data, and the number of pieces of the particular second relational knowledge data. ([Hashimoto, col 37, lines 60-66] “Social scenario selector 648 selects those of the social scenarios stored in sorted social scenario candidate DB 646 which have the scores equal to or higher than a threshold value and outputs those to social scenario DB 38.” wherein the examiner interprets “outputs those to social scenario DB 38” to be the same as the “output process” of the particular first relational knowledge data, and have the scores equal to or higher than a threshold value to be the same as the number of pieces of the particular second relational knowledge data, as both are directed to the use of some criteria for filtering and outputting relational data). Claim 9 is analogous to claim 2, and therefore will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto teaches:
The creation assisting device according to claim 2, wherein the processor executes an extraction process of extracting a plurality of substrings including part of a string of knowledge defined for the second destination node from the string; ([Hashimoto, page 43, col 45, lines 54 - 57] “On the other hand, modified-noun extractor 562 extracts a noun modified by a modifier phrase in the form of “B of A” (“B” in the form of “B of A”), by searching WEB archive 44, and stores the results in excluded-word DB 564.” wherein the examiner interprets extracting a noun modified by a modifier phrase in the form of “B of A” to be the same as extracting a plurality of substrings including part of a string of knowledge, as both are directed to obtaining portions of a knowledge-bearing string by parsing out components such as nouns from within structured expressions).
in the generation process, the processor generates the second search query using, as the second destination node, each of strings extracted at the extraction process, ([Hashimoto, page 44, col 47, lines 5-10] “each of the causality phrase pair stored in causality phrase pair DB 70. Specifically, it specifies a noun in a result phrase (considered to be the first phrase)” wherein the examiner interprets “causality phrase pair stored” to be the generation process of making connections via edges to nodes to make phrase pairs.)
in the search process, the processor searches the database for the particular second relational knowledge data about each of the second search queries, ([Hashimoto, page 43, col 46, lines 59 – 67] “when a phrase of a certain causality phrase pair and a phrase of another causality phrase pair stored in causality phrase pair DB 70 have a causal consistency or have a link based on semantic relation therebetween, social scenario candidate generator 580 generates a social scenario by linking a pair of causality phrases having the former in a result phrase and the latter in a cause phrase. By linking the social scenario generated in this manner further to other causality, a longer social scenario can be generated. In the present embodiment, social scenario candidate generator 580 uses causality relations of a constant number or smaller to be linked.” wherein the examiner interprets “linking a pair of causality phrases... stored in causality phrase pair DB 70” to be the same as “searches the database [a.k.a. DB] for the particular second relational knowledge data”, as both are directed to accessing stored relational data to retrieve causally linked information.)
the processor executes a computation process of computing statistical data related to the number of pieces of the particular second relational knowledge data found through the search of each of the second search queries ([Hashimoto, page 44, col 48, lines 42-48] “For each social scenario generated by social scenario candidate generator 580, social scenario ranking unit 582 shown in FIG. 17 calculates a score of the social scenario based on the strength of each causality forming the scenario,” wherein the examiner interprets “calculates a score of the social scenario based on the strength of each causality forming the scenario” to be the same as computing statistical data related to the number of pieces of the particular second relational knowledge data found through the search of each of the second search queries, as both are directed to evaluating and quantifying retrieved relational data based on characteristics (such as strength or count) of the underlying knowledge elements returned from search operations).
in the output process, the processor outputs the particular first relational knowledge data, and the statistical data computed in the computation process. ([Hashimoto, page 39, col 37, lines 60-66] “a social scenario selector 648 selecting, from the social scenario candidates stored in sorted social scenario candidate DB 646, those having scores equal to or higher than a threshold value and outputting these to social scenario DB 38.” wherein the examiner interprets “outputting these to social scenario DB 38” to be the same as outputting the particular first relational knowledge data, and also interpret “scores equal to or higher than a threshold value” to be the same as statistical data computed in the computation process, as both terms are directed to quantitative evaluation results used in output selection.)
Regarding claim 8, Hashimoto teaches:
The creation assisting device according to claim 1, wherein in the updating process, the processor updates the scenario in a case that, in the scenario, the second node, and the second destination node in the particular first relational knowledge data are linked by a second edge corresponding to the first edge. ([Hashimoto, page 39, col 37, lines 5-15] “Social scenario candidate generator 580 further includes: a join information generator 608, using identifier pairs of phrases output from the first, second and third synonymity generators 600, 602 and 604 and ordered identifier pairs output from join relation generator 606, generating, for each causality phrase pair, a tree consisting of a set formed of a certain causality phrase pair and another causality phrase pair connected by causality to the certain causality phrase pair; and a join relation DB 610 storing the trees output from join information generator 608” wherein the examiner interprets “a tree consisting of a set formed of a certain causality phrase pair and another causality phrase pair connected by causality to the certain causality phrase pair” to be the same as “the second node, and the second destination node in the particular first relational knowledge data are linked by a second edge corresponding to the first edge”, as both are directed to building a structured representation where causally related elements are connected and used to update a scenario).
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto teaches:
The creation assisting device according to claim 9, wherein the relational knowledge data has related information of the relational knowledge data, in the generation process, the processor generates the third search query on a basis of the first destination node in the inference route, the third destination node, the third edge, and the related information included in the particular first relational knowledge data, and [Hashimoto, page 21, col 2, lines 15-27] “Each of the large number of causality phrase pairs includes a cause phrase and a result phrase of causality. Each phrase includes a noun and a predicate template following the noun. The scenario generating means includes: join information generating means, for searching the phrase pair storage means, for each of the large number of causality phrase pairs, for a causality phrase pair having a cause phrase with causal consistency with the result phrase of the causality phrase pair and for generating join information for joining causality phrase pairs;” wherein the examiner interprets “each of the large number of causality phrase pairs includes a cause phrase and a result phrase of causality.” and “generating join information for joining causality phrase pairs” to be the same as “the relational knowledge data has related information of the relational knowledge data” and “in the generation process, the processor generates the third search query on a basis of the first destination node in the inference route, … and the related information included in the particular first relational knowledge data”, respectively, as both are directed to constructing a query based on relationships and attributes extracted from structured phrase data and related linking information.)
in the output process, the processor outputs the particular second relational knowledge data, and the related information. ([Hashimoto, page 2, Abstract] “joining, to a result phrase of a causality phrase pair, a causality phrase pair having a cause phrase with causal consistency with the phrase by using the join information, and thereby linking causality.” and [Hashimoto, Page 1, Fig 15] “Output all causality hypotheses to causality hypothesis DB 416” wherein the examiner interprets “output all causality hypotheses” to be the same as the output process. The examiner further interprets “joining, to a result phrase of a causality phrase pair” to be the same as “relational knowledge data” because they are both regarding making a connection in the data for some relation).
Regarding claim 12, Hashimoto teaches:
The creation assisting device according to claim 10, wherein in the generation process, the processor decides relational knowledge data corresponding to the third search query as the particular second relational knowledge data on a basis of a similarity between related information of the third search query, and related information of the relational knowledge data corresponding to the third search query. ([Hashimoto, page 44, col 47, lines 45-64] “The third synonymity generator 604 determines causal consistency based on similarity of contexts in which phrases appear in a large amount of documents, and outputs join information between two causality phrase pairs. Specifically, the third synonymity generator 604 performs the following process. For this purpose, distribution similarity calculator 616 calculates distributional similarity in WEB archive 44 of each combination of phrases appearing in causality hypothesis DB 416 with reference to causality hypothesis DB 416 and WEB archive 44, and stores the results in template distributional similarity DB 614. For each of the phrase pairs having the same noun and the same polarity of the entire phrase among the phrases of causality phrase pairs stored in causality phrase pair DB 70, the third synonymity generator 604 reads the distributional similarity from template distributional similarity DB 614. If the distributional similarity is smaller than a threshold value, the phrase pair is discarded. If the distributional similarity is equal to or higher than the threshold value” wherein the examiner interprets “distributional similarity in WEB archive 44 of each combination of phrases” read from “template distributional similarity DB 614” to be the same as a similarity between related information of the third search query, and related information of the relational knowledge data corresponding to the third search query, as both are directed to selecting relational knowledge data based on computed similarity or relation of associated contextual information.).
Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto teaches:
The creation assisting device according to claim 1, wherein the processor executes a storage process of deciding a registration target scenario by selecting a node group, and an edge group linking the node group from the scenario, and storing the registration target scenario in the storage device. ([Hashimoto, page 21, col 2, lines 10-40] “a scenario generating apparatus, including: phrase pair storage means for storing a large number of causality phrase pairs; and scenario generating means for generating a scenario formed of a series of phrases, by linking those of the phase pairs stored in the phrase pair storage means which are linkable as causality. Each of the large number of causality phrase pairs includes a cause phrase and a result phrase of causality. Each phrase includes a noun and a predicate template following the noun. The scenario generating means includes: join information generating means, for searching the phrase pair storage means, for each of the large number of causality phrase pairs, for a causality phrase pair having a cause phrase with causal consistency with the result phrase of the causality phrase pair and for generating join information for joining causality phrase pairs; join information storage means for storing the join information generated by the join information generating means; initial scenario designating means for designating an arbitrary phrase pair as an initial scenario; and linking means for searching the phrase pair storing means for a phrase pair having a cause phrase having causal consistency with a result phrase at a tail of a scenario, using the join information stored in the join information storage means, and for linking the searched out causality phrase pair to the tail of the scenario. The linking means continues linking, starting from the initial scenario designated by the initial scenario designating means, a causality phrase pair to the tail of the scenario until a predetermined end condition is satisfied, thereby generating a scenario.” wherein the examiner interprets “generating a scenario formed of a series of phrases, by linking... phrase pairs” and “linking means... thereby generating a scenario” to be the same as deciding a registration target scenario by selecting a node group, and an edge group linking the node group from the scenario, and “phrase pair storage means” and “join information storage means” to be the same as storing the registration target scenario in the storage device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-7,and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Suchanek.
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto teaches The creation assisting device according to claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Hashimoto does not teach wherein the relational knowledge data has related information of the relational knowledge data, and in the output process, the processor outputs the particular second relational knowledge data including the related information.
Suchanek teaches wherein the relational knowledge data has related information of the relational knowledge data, and in the output process, the processor outputs the particular second relational knowledge data including the related information. ([Suchanek, page 18, sec. 4.1.5] “Descriptions. Due to its generality, the YAGO ontology can store meta-relations uniformly together with usual relations. For example, we store for each individual the URL of the corresponding Wikipedia page. This will allow future applications to provide the user with detailed information on the entities. We introduce the describes relation between the individual and its URL for this purpose.” wherein the examiner interprets “store meta-relations uniformly together with usual relations” and “the describes relation between the individual and its URL” to be the same as “the relational knowledge data has related information of the relational knowledge data”, and “provide the user with detailed information on the entities” to be the same as “in the output process, the processor outputs the particular second relational knowledge data including the related information”.)
Hashimoto, Suchanek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to systems and methods for organizing and outputting structured knowledge including relationships and meta data information.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the knowledge output system disclosed by Suchanek to include the process of ”causality hypotheses to causality hypothesis DB” disclosed by Hashimoto. One would be motivated to do so to effectively enhance the process of linking pairs of information, as suggested by Hashimoto (Hashimoto, [Hashimoto, page 21, col 2, lines 10-40] “linking those of the phase pairs stored in said first non-transitory computer readable medium which are linkable as causality”).
Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto in view of Suchanek teaches The creation assisting device according to claim 4, (see rejection of claim 4).
Suchanek further teaches wherein the related information is document data related to a reference to be a ground of the relational knowledge data. ([Suchanek, page 25, sec 5.3] “To demonstrate how an application can add new facts to the YAGO ontology, we conducted an experiment with the knowledge extraction system Leila [25]. Leila is a state-of-the-art system that uses pattern matching on natural language text. It can extract facts of a certain given relation from Web documents. We trained Leila for the headquarteredIn relation (as described in [26]). This relation holds between a company and the city of its headquarters. We ran Leila on a corpus of 150 news documents and had it extract pairs of companies and headquarters” wherein the examiner interprets “a corpus of 150 news documents” from which Leila extracts relational facts to be the same as document data related to a reference to be a ground of the relational knowledge data).
Hashimoto, Suchanek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to extracting and outputting relational knowledge data based on document information.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relational data extraction and output from Web documents disclosed by Suchanek to include the process of generating a “causality phrase pair having a cause phrase with causal consistency with the result phrase” disclosed by Hashimoto. One would be motivated to do so to effectively enhance the linking of relational data across causal chains, as suggested by Hashimoto (Hashimoto, [page 21, col 2, lines 22–25] “linking... a causality phrase pair having a cause phrase with causal consistency with the phrase”).
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto in view of Suchanek teaches The creation assisting device according to claim 4, (see rejection of claim 4).
Suchanek further teaches wherein the related information is information about access to a reference to be a ground of the relational knowledge data. ([Suchanek, page 7, sec 2] “For example, suppose that the above fact (Albert Einstein, bornInYear, 1879) had the fact identifier #1, then the following line would say that this fact was found in Wikipedia: #1 [link]” which identifies a source linked to a specific fact, to be the same as information about access to a reference to be a ground of the relational knowledge data).
Hashimoto, Suchanek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to displaying and managing relational knowledge data with associated metadata in support of user-facing output or inference systems.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recorded knowledge graph structure and fact metadata management disclosed by Suchanek to include the process of “linking... a causality phrase pair to the tail of a scenario... thereby generating a scenario” disclosed by Hashimoto. One would be motivated to do so to effectively enhance the user’s ability to traverse or infer from knowledge data, as suggested by Hashimoto ([Hashimoto, col 2, lines 20–24] “generating join information for joining causality phrase pairs”).
Regarding claim 7, Hashimoto in view of Suchanek teaches The creation assisting device according to claim 5, (see rejection of claim 5).
Suchanek further teaches wherein in the output process, the processor outputs a string representing knowledge defined for each of the second node, and the second destination node in the document data, and a string representing relevance defined for the first edge such that the string representing the knowledge, and the string representing the relevance can be displayed in a more noticeable format. ([Suchanek, page 7, sec 2] “The triple of an entity, a relation and an entity is called a fact. The two entities are called the arguments of the fact. Each fact is given a fact identifier. As RDFS, the YAGO model considers fact identifiers to be entities as well. This allows us to represent for example that a certain fact was found at a certain URL.” And [Suchanek, page 13, sec 3.1] “Conceptually, the hypernymy relation in WordNet spans a directed acyclic graph (DAG) with a single source node called Entity” wherein the examiner interprets “the triple of an entity, a relation and an entity is called a fact,” “each fact is given a fact identifier,” and “the hypernymy relation in WordNet spans a directed acyclic graph” to be the same as “a string representing knowledge defined for each of the second node, and the second destination node in the document data,” and “a string representing relevance defined for the first edge” as both are directed to representing knowledge and relationships between nodes in a structured format suitable for display.)
Hashimoto, Suchanek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all to representing knowledge and relat