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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 9/30/2025 has been entered. In the amendment, claims 1-19 were amended and claim 20 was added. No claims were cancelled. As such, claims 1-20 are pending.
The objections to the drawings and specification set forth in the previous office action
are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification and drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to an abstract idea in the previous office action have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s reliance on “USPTO’s August 4, 2025 Memorandum”, suggesting criteria for assessing the claims under U.S.C. § 101 (Applicant’s Remarks pages 15-16 and 19-21), the Examiner notes that the Memo explicitly states that it “is not intended to announce any new USPTO guidance or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” Memo at 1.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that “the claims do not ‘recite’ the rejection’s alleged exception”, “the specification does not indicate that the claim features represent any performance in the human mind or with pen and paper - nor would that be what one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret from the claims” and “the rejection's Step 2A Prong 1 conclusion is not consistent with the specification… the rejection exceeded a BRI and should be withdrawn at Step 2A Prong 1” (Applicant’s Remarks pages 16-18), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not identify any specific claim limitation that was allegedly misinterpreted or interpreted broader than justified by the specification, and the argument is merely conclusory and non-persuasive. Furthermore, in light of the amendments to the claims, the claims are re-evaluated under the Alice/Mayo test, set forth in the rejection under U.S.C. § 101 below.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “the claims, previously or at least as currently pending, reflect ‘a particular solution’” (Applicant’s Remarks page 16), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts the originally-filed specification pages [0002-0009] describes “a problem in which the technology representing the relevance of a piece of data to another by a cause-and effect diagram was found deficient for not also indicating a magnitude or degree of such relevance and that the field would be improved by such an indication” (Applicant’s Remarks page 20). The alleged problem is presented in the original specification paragraph [0004] as: “Magnitude of influence that a factor gives on an effect may be different for each factor. However, a cause-and-effect diagram in Patent Document 1 does not represent such magnitude of influence of each factor”, this ‘problem’ is merely a lack of presenting specific data regarding influence metrics, and does not suggest an adequate technological problem in relation to a computer or technical field.
The Examiner notes Applicant’s statement (Applicant’s Remarks, page 21) requesting that the Office provide an amendment that would overcome the U.S.C. § 101 rejection, if the rejection is maintained. However, the Examiner respectfully declines to suggest or propose any claim amendments at this this stage in the prosecution, as the application remains under the provisions of this Final Office Action. For the reasons previously discussed in the previous Non-Final Office Action and the further analysis set forth below, the rejection of claims 1-19 under U.S.C. § 101 is hereby maintained. Examiner suggests that Applicant schedule an interview if they wish to discuss potential amendment strategies.
Additionally, newly added claim 20 which depends from amended independent claim 1,
has been fully considered under the Alice/Mayo test, and is rejected for the same reasons set
forth with respect to independent claim 1, as claim 20 does not include additional elements
that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas identified in the analysis of independent claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the previous office action have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s assertion that Takada in view of Ambichl does not teach or suggest the amended claim and that the references as cited by the rejection and overall does not remedy the deficiencies of Takada in view of Ambichl (Applicant’s Remarks page 22), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “Takada in view of Ambichl does not disclose or reasonably suggest the following of claim 1: ‘generating the-cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining presence or absence of a display relating to teach of the plurality of explanatory variables in the cause-and-effect diagram’”, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because this amended claim language merely rephrases the original phrase limitation of “determining a display aspect for a display relating to each explanatory variable or presence or absence of the display”, excluding the ‘display aspect’ term, and does not substantially change the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the Examiner has applied the relevant portions of cited art Takada to the newly-recited limitations of independent claim 1, and independent claim 10. In particular and as further discussed in section U.S.C. § 103 Rejection below, Takada Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4 and Col. 12 lines 21-33, collectively teaches the limitation recited in the independent claims. In addition to the previously discussed features, Takada also teaches the limitations of the newly added claim 20, as set forth below.
Applicant’s remarks that the rejections of dependent claims 2-9, and 11-18 should be withdrawn “at least by those claims’ dependencies and as Sen also does not remedy at least the above-described deficiencies of Takada in view of Ambichl” (Applicant’s Remarks, page 22), is fully acknowledged. However, in light of the rejections of the independent claims set forth below, this argument is unpersuasive.
Although claims 1-19 were amended, the arguments presented by the Applicant are unpersuasive, as the prior art applied in the previous Non-Final Office Action remains pertinent to the amended claims. As detailed below the previously-applied combination of references (Takada, Ambichl and Sen) teaches all of the limitations of amended claims 1-19 (including independent claims 1, 10 and 19) and of new claim 20.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim is directed to an analysis apparatus, corresponding to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable1 and the plurality of explanatory variables,
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining a presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables2 in the cause-and-effect diagram
In particular, the generation of a cause-and-effect diagram that represents a relationship between variables can be associated with the evaluation and observation of said variable data. Additionally, determining a display presence or absence of a display relating to each variable or the displays presence or absence, is observing a display based on explanatory variable data.
Given a sufficiently small dataset of relationship information, nothing in the claim prohibits these processes from being performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
based on, among the degrees of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable
Claim 1 recites the additional elements: “An analysis apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:”, which are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system, content repository, and a processor), or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables is represented by one or more linear models,
and the degree of influence of the explanatory variable is represented by a coefficient by which the explanatory variable is multiplied in at least one linear model of the one or more linear models
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception of claim 1. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the relationship information indicates, for each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a plurality of degrees of influence of the plurality of explanatory variables,
a statistical value of the plurality of degrees of influence indicated by the relationship information for the explanatory variable
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram by handling the statistical value as the degree of influence of the explanatory variable
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: computing for each of the plurality of explanatory variables,
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: making a first display aspect different between a first display relating to a first explanatory variable as having a first degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value, and a second display relating to a second explanatory variable, other than the first explanatory variable as having a second degree of influence equal to or more than the threshold value,
making a second display aspect different between a third display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a first predetermined rank in order and a fourth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the first predetermined rank in order,
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, making a third display aspect different between a fifth display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a second predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group, and a sixth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the second predetermined rank in order among the other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group,
and wherein the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable are of the each of the plurality of explanatory variables, one of the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable is the explanatory variable, one of the first degree of influence and the second degree of influence is the degree of influence, and one of the first display, the second display, the third display, the fourth display, the fifth display, the sixth display is the display
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a first display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value,
allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a second display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence within a predetermined rank in order,
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, allowing the cause- and-effect diagram to include only a third display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence as within the predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group
and wherein one of the first display, the second display, and the third display is the display
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: outputting the cause-and-effect diagram;
and generating a graph by using the first data
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed to retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and generating, as the graph,
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
any of a first graph, representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable,
and a second graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed to retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises generating screen data including both the first graph and the second graph
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises allowing the graph to include second data on the objective variable
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible, Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 10:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a control method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable3 and the plurality of explanatory variables,
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining a presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables4 in the cause-and-effect diagram
In particular, the generation of a cause-and-effect diagram that represents a relationship between variables can be associated with the evaluation and observation of said variable data. Additionally, determining a display presence or absence of a display relating to each variable or the displays presence or absence, is observing a display based on explanatory variable data.
Given a sufficiently small dataset of relationship information, nothing in the claim prohibits these processes from being performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
based on, among the degrees of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables is represented by one or more linear models,
and the degree of influence of the explanatory variable is represented by a coefficient by which the explanatory variable is multiplied in at least one linear model of the one or more linear models
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception of claim 1. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the relationship information indicates, for each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a plurality of degrees of influence of the plurality of explanatory variables,
a statistical value of the plurality of degrees of influence indicated by the relationship information for the explanatory variable,
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram by handling the statistical value as the degree of influence of the explanatory variable
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and the control method further comprising: computing for each of the plurality of explanatory variables,
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: making a first display aspect different between a first display relating to a first explanatory variable as having a first degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value, and a second display relating to a second explanatory variable, other than the first explanatory variable as having a second degree of influence equal to or more than the threshold value,
making a second display aspect different between a third display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a first predetermined rank in order and a fourth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the first predetermined rank in order,
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, making a third display aspect different between a fifth display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a second predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group, and a sixth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the second predetermined rank in order among the other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group,
and wherein the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable are of the each of the plurality of explanatory variables, one of the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable is the explanatory variable, one of the first degree of influence and the second degree of influence is the degree of influence, and one of the first display, the second display, the third display, the fourth display, the fifth display, the sixth display is the display
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprising any of: allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a first display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value,
allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a second display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence within a predetermined rank in order,
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, allowing the cause- and-effect diagram to include only a third display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence as within the predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group
and wherein one of the first display, the second display, and the third display is the display
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 10.
The following additional elements are 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
further comprising: outputting the cause-and-effect diagram;
and generating a graph by using the first data
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed to retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
further comprising: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and generating, as the graph,
The following additional elements can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
any of a first graph, representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable,
and a second graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed to retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
further comprising: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 16.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 16.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
further comprising generating screen data including both the first graph and the second graph
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the method of claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
further comprising: allowing the graph to include second data on the objective variable
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible, Therefore, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 19:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
and generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable5 and the plurality of explanatory variables,
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining a presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables6 in the cause-and-effect diagram
In particular, the generation of a cause-and-effect diagram that represents a relationship between variables can be associated with the evaluation and observation of said variable data. Additionally, determining a display presence or absence of a display relating to each variable or the displays presence or absence, is observing a display based on explanatory variable data.
Given a sufficiently small dataset of relationship information, nothing in the claim prohibits these processes from being performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
based on, among the degrees of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable
Claim 19 recites the additional element: “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute operations comprising:”, which is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system, content repository, and a processor), or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional element is directed retrieving information in memory. The courts (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) have recognized retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) IV.].
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element can be considered as generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [See MPEP § 2106.05(h)]. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises outputting the display as a user interface
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation amounts to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (US 11216741 B2; hereinafter Takada) in view of Ambichl (US 20170075749 A1; hereinafter Ambichl).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Takada teaches An analysis apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: (see, e.g., Takada Col. 9 lines 53-55: “it is allowable to cause the analysis apparatus 3 to automatically perform the processing instead of allowing the user to issue the execution instruction at an arbitrary timing” and Col. 17 lines 5-19: “the analysis apparatus 1 is constructed in a computer 30, and analysis apparatus 1 receives instructions… In a hard disk 32, a program which activates the computer 30 and activates the analysis apparatus 1 may be included, and a database which stores and holds input/output data of the analysis apparatus 1 may be constructed”),
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable7 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 33-35: “The influence degree calculator 308 calculates the influence degree, that is, an index indicating the influence of each of the explanatory variables on the objective variable” [i.e., degrees of influence for a multitude of explanatory variables on an objective variable is calculated] and Col. 12 lines 6-9: “FIG. 9 is a diagram displaying, in a network diagram, the relationship between the important characteristic value and the features, that is, the relationship between the objective variable, the explanatory variable, and the similar feature”);
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables in the cause-and-effect diagram (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4: “The factor-influence degree display 312 may be configured to output the regression coefficients as illustrated… they may also be configured to be displayed together, or the desired feature of the explanatory variable for observation may be configured to be switched and displayed by user's operation” [i.e., features displaying the various explanatory variables in the factor-influence degree (cause-and-effect) display may be toggled (e.g., on or off, mode, color, etc.) depending on a mode of the display] and Col. 12 lines 21-33: “As another example, the influence degree of each of the explanatory variables on the objective variable may be configured… to enable the user to intuitively confirm the relevance between a plurality of factors by using an expression as a network diagram. As yet another example, it is allowable to express them by changing the colors of nodes and edges in accordance with the influence degree or similarity degree”),
based on, among the degrees of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable8 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 12 lines 16-20: “For example, it is also possible to express the objective variable, the explanatory variable, and the feature extracted as the similar feature as a node and express the influence degree or similarity degree as the thickness or length of an edge” and Col. 12 lines 21-27: “As another example, the influence degree of each of the explanatory variables on the objective variable may be configured to be represented by the size of the node of each of the explanatory variables, and the similarity degree between each of the similar features and the explanatory variable may be configured to be expressed by the size of node of each of the similar features” [i.e., degrees of influence of each of the explanatory variables effect the visual aspects of their representations on a visual display]).
Although Takada substantially discloses the claimed invention Takada is not relied on for explicitly disclosing and generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables,
In the same field, analogous art Ambichl teaches generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables (see, e.g., Ambichl paragraph [0102]: “An event causality edge record 410 may contain but is not limited to a cause event reference 411 that uniquely identify an event that describes the cause part of the described causal relationship, an effect event reference 412 that uniquely identifies an event that is according to the event causality edge record caused by the event identified by the cause event reference, a causality factor 413 determining the weight of the causal effect between the cause end the effect event, and… calculated by the causality estimator considering various topological, transactional and timing related aspects of cause and effect event” [i.e., effect event is an objective variable and the topology, transactions, and timing related aspects of the cause and effect relationship are a plurality of explanatory variables], paragraph [0140] “Following step 803 determines for each pair of events formed by an existing event and the new event and for each causality direction, a causality graph which describes the possible topological paths a causal effect may take to travel from cause to effect” [i.e., the formation of the causality graph which includes cause and effect relationships] and paragraph [0210]: “The process of calculating the potential root cause events for an event graph 230 created or updated by the causality estimator, as performed by the root cause estimator 235 is shown in FIG. 16”).
Takada and Ambichl are analogous art because they are
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada to incorporate the teachings of Ambichl to generate a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between objective and explanatory variables. Doing so would have allowed Takada to use Ambichl's method in order to “identify causal relationships between different identified abnormal operating conditions”, as suggested by Ambichl (see, e.g., Ambichl, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada further teaches wherein the relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables is represented by one or more linear models (see, e.g., Takada Col. 12 lines 60-67: "the analysis apparatus 3 according to the present embodiment extracts the feature that explains the variation of the important characteristic value, constructs a regression model, and extracts features that are similar to the features included in the regression model, thereby extracting the factor of variation that is likely to be overlooked and thus not extracted because of collinearity in the feature extraction in the regression model construction"),
and the degree of influence of the explanatory variable is represented by a coefficient by which the explanatory variable is multiplied in at least one linear model of the one or more linear models (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 45-50: “In the present embodiment, for example, the regression coefficient β.sub.j of each of the explanatory variables in the regression model 350, or β.sub.jσ(x.sub.j) obtained by multiplying the regression coefficient β.sub.j by standard deviation σ(x.sub.j) of x.sub.j is used as the influence degree of each of the explanatory variables on the objective variable”).
Regarding Claim 3, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada further teaches wherein the relationship information indicates, for each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a plurality of degrees of influence of the explanatory variables (see, e.g., Takada Col. 11 lines 10-49: “FIGS. 7A, 7B, 8A, and 8B are diagrams illustrating display examples of factors and influence degrees. FIG. 7A is a diagram illustrating an exemplary regression coefficient of an explanatory variable. The displayed graph represents a regression coefficient in the constructed regression model for a feature 1, a feature 2, and a feature 3 as explanatory variables. The graph illustrates an amount of change in the objective variable in a case where each of the explanatory variables increases by one … Each of FIGS. 8A and 8B respectively illustrates the influence degrees of the feature 1 as the explanatory variable, the feature 2, and the feature 3, and the influence degrees of the feature 4 and the feature 5, that is, similar features similar to the feature 1 as the explanatory variable, arranged side by side. For example, in these figures, numerical values obtained by multiplying the regression coefficients by the variance of features are graphed” [i.e. each feature indicates a degree of influence of multiple explanatory variables]),
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: computing for each of the plurality of explanatory variables (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 33-36: “The influence degree calculator 308 calculates the influence degree, that is, an index indicating the influence of each of the explanatory variables on the objective variable on the basis of the regression model 350 constructed by the regression model constructor 304”),
a statistical value of the plurality of degrees of influence indicated by the relationship information for the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 45-50: “In the present embodiment, for example, the regression coefficient β.sub.j of each of the explanatory variables in the regression model 350, or β.sub.jσ(x.sub.j) obtained by multiplying the regression coefficient β.sub.j by standard deviation σ(x.sub.j) of x.sub.j is used as the influence degree of each of the explanatory variables on the objective variable”),
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram by handling the statistical value as the degree of influence of the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 65-67: “The factor-influence degree display 312 outputs various data stored in the factor-influence degree storage 310 and displays the data via the user input/output I/F 4” and Col. 6 lines 7-10: “By displaying the regression coefficient β.sub.j for the feature x.sub.j extracted by the regression model constructor 304, the factor-influence degree display 312 can visualize a change amount of the objective variable… In addition to this, the factor-influence degree display 312 can visualize the influence of explanatory variables (features) on the objective variable by displaying β.sub.jσ(x.sub.j) as the influence degree” [i.e., the calculated influence degrees are used in the display that represents a generated graph/diagram of cause-effect values]).
Regarding Claim 4, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada further teaches making a second display aspect different between a third display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a first predetermined rank in order (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 5-6 lines 65-67, 1-6: “On the basis of the data displayed on the user input/output I/F 4, the user identifies a factor, performs re-setting of various parameters, or the like. The extracted features may be listed as the data to be displayed. Furthermore, the features in the list may be prioritized on the basis of their individual influence degrees and displayed in order of priority” [i.e., the ranked display of influence degrees displaying a top-ranked explanatory variable changes in accordance to influence and priority corresponding to second display aspect between a ‘third display’ rating to the first explanatory variable], Col. 6 lines 7-10: “By displaying the regression coefficient β.sub.j for the feature x.sub.j extracted by the regression model constructor 304, the factor-influence degree display 312 can visualize a change amount of the objective variable… In addition to this, the factor-influence degree display 312 can visualize the influence of explanatory variables (features) on the objective variable by displaying β.sub.jσ(x.sub.j) as the influence degree” [i.e., each display aspect corresponds to a different explanatory variable having its own influence degree, which corresponds to multiple displays and display aspects] and Cols 6-7 lines 65-6,1-4: “…it is possible to suppress the influence of noise by extending the period of data as the analysis target than the current period in a case where the accuracy is lower than a predetermined value, and possible to avoid selection of an explanatory variable in a case where the influence degree of the explanatory variable on the objective variable is smaller than a predetermined value” [i.e., the separation of explanatory variables having a degree of influence and those without it]),
and a fourth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the first predetermined rank in order (see, e.g., Takada Col. 6 lines 3-23: “The extracted features may be listed as the data to be displayed. Furthermore, the features in the list may be prioritized on the basis of their individual influence degrees and displayed in order of priority… By displaying the regression coefficient β.sub.j for the feature x.sub.j… the factor-influence degree display 312 can visualize… the influence of explanatory variables (features) on the objective variable by displaying β.sub.jσ(x.sub.j) as the influence degree… Moreover, by displaying β.sub.kσ(x.sub.k) as the influence degree of the similar feature, it is possible to visualize the influence of the similar feature on the objective variable” [i.e., the ‘fourth display’ corresponds to the visualization of the second explanatory variable β.sub.kσ(x.sub.k) which is ranked within the order of priority (predetermined rank in order)]),
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, making a third display aspect different between a fifth display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the degree of influence within a second predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group, and a sixth display9 relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the second predetermined rank in order among the other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group (see, e.g., Takada Col. 14 lines 46- 52: “By using Group Lasso, the regression model constructor 304 can perform feature extraction for each of groups. That is, whether to perform selection is determined for each of the groups, and the regression coefficients of the selected groups are all 0, and the regression coefficients of the unselected group are all 0” [i.e., groups of features/explanatory variables are processed separately], Col. 15 lines 45-50: “The factor-influence degree display 312 displays a list of groups extracted by the regression model constructor and the similar feature extractor, to the user via the user input/output I/F 4. The list may be prioritized in accordance with the influence degree calculated by the influence degree calculator 308 and displayed in the order of priority” [i.e., the display shows individual features (explanatory variables) with different visual aspects according to their degree of influence and priority, accordingly, the top features within a group functionally represent the first and second ranked explanatory variables that correspond to separate fifth and sixth displays], Col. 16 lines 9-10: “FIG. 13 indicates that a feature 1-A and a feature 1-B are explanatory variables belonging to group 1” [i.e., first and second explanatory variables (features 1-A and 1-B) are two distinct explanatory variables in the same group, which can be displayed differently based on influence degree] and Col. 16 lines 14-19: “it is possible to visually display a trend of the influence degree of each of the groups on the objective variable and to display details of the influence degree of each of the explanatory variables belonging to each of the groups on the objective variable” [i.e., display aspects are visually distinct for each variable within the group based on influence, functionally representing making a third display aspect different between displays]),
and wherein the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable are of the each of the plurality of explanatory variables, one of the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable is the explanatory variable, one of the first degree of influence and the second degree of influence is the degree of influence, and one of the first display, the second display, the third display, the fourth display, the fifth display, the sixth display is the display10 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 16 lines 9-10: “FIG. 13 indicates that a feature 1-A and a feature 1-B are explanatory variables belonging to group 1” [i.e., first and second explanatory variables (features 1-A and 1-B) are two distinct explanatory variables in the same group of a plurality of explanatory variables (see, e.g., Fig. 13)], Col. 15 lines 50-52: “The influence degree calculator 308 calculates the influence degree of each of the groups” [i.e., there are multiple degrees of influence] and Col. 6 lines 17-23: “the factor-influence degree display 312 can visualize the change amount of the objective variable… Moreover, by displaying β.sub.kσ(x.sub.k) as the influence degree of the similar feature, it is possible to visualize the influence of the similar feature on the objective variable” [i.e., there are multiple possible displays corresponding to a possible first display]).
Although Takada substantially teaches the claimed invention, Takada is not relied upon to explicitly teach the limitation wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: making a first display aspect different between a first display relating to a first explanatory variable as having a first degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value and a second display relating to a second explanatory variable other than the first explanatory variable as having a second degree of influence equal to or more than the threshold value,
In the same field, analogous art Ambichl teaches wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: making a first display aspect different between a first display relating to a first explanatory variable as having a first degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value and a second display relating to a second explanatory variable other than the first explanatory variable as having a second degree of influence equal to or more than the threshold value (see, e.g., Ambichl paragraph [0110]: “An exemplary event causality graph, showing causal relationships between events… and probable causal relationships between those events as detected by a causality estimator that exceed a specific impact level threshold (602, 605, 608, 611, 614, 620, 624 and 626) and are thus modelled in form of event causality edge records, and one possible causal relationship 618 that has an impact level below impact level threshold and which is thus ignored for further calculations. More possible causal relationships that are suppressed due to a low impact factor may exist in this scenario, but they are not shown” [i.e., the first explanatory variable (e.g., 602) corresponds to a first cause event whose causal edge exceeds the impact threshold, representing a ‘first display’ of the explanatory variable on the causality graph, and the second explanatory variable (e.g., 605, or 608, etc.) corresponds to a different cause event whose causal edge exceeds the threshold representing a ‘second display’] and paragraph [0118]: “The dashed line 618 represents potential causal relationship between P4 130 on S 2 128 and P5 117 on S 1 122 which is ignored due to a low causal factor” [i.e., the fact that edges above the threshold are visualized, while the edges below the threshold (e.g., 618) are omitted suggests the represented edges are the ‘first display aspect’]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada to incorporate the teachings of Ambichl to make a display aspect different between a display relating to an explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value and a display other than an explanatory variable with a degree of influence above or equal to a threshold value. Doing so would have allowed Takada to use Ambichl's method in order to “detect causal relationships between events describing different types of abnormal operation condition of monitored application components”, as suggested by Ambichl (see, e.g., Ambichl, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 5, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada further teaches allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a second display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence within a predetermined rank in order (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 5-6 lines 65-67, 1-6: “The factor-influence degree display 312 outputs various data stored in the factor-influence degree storage 310 and displays the data via the user input/output I/F 4. On the basis of the data displayed on the user input/output I/F 4, the user identifies a factor, performs re-setting of various parameters, or the like. The extracted features may be listed as the data to be displayed. Furthermore, the features in the list may be prioritized on the basis of their individual influence degrees and displayed in order of priority” and Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4: “The factor-influence degree display 312 may be… configured to be switched and displayed by user's operation” [i.e., the display can be configured to show the only the ‘second’ graph display having explanatory variables that are ordered by priority of influence degrees]),
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a third display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence as within the predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4: “The factor-influence degree display 312 may be… configured to be switched and displayed by user's operation” [i.e., the factor-influence degree display may be switched to only display a third display (e.g., relating to the explanatory variable that holds the desired rank position within a given group) according to the user’s preference], Col. 16 lines 14-18: "As illustrated in FIG. 13, it is possible to visually display a trend of the influence degree of each of the groups on the objective variable and to display details of the influence degree of each of the explanatory variables belonging to each of the groups on the objective variable" [i.e., the details of the influence degree of each explanatory variable in a group is displayed for each group, including a ‘third’ display] and Col. 15 lines 45-50: “The factor-influence degree display 312 displays a list of groups extracted by the regression model constructor and the similar feature extractor, to the user via the user input/output I/F 4. The list may be prioritized in accordance with the influence degree calculated by the influence degree calculator 308 and displayed in the order of priority”),
and wherein one of the first display, the second display, and the third display is the display11 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 65-67: “The factor-influence degree display 312 outputs various data… and displays the data via the user input/output I/F 4” [i.e., the various data output by factor-influence degree display 312, corresponds to one of the displays (e.g., first display, second display, third display), which serves as the claimed display])
Although Takada substantially teaches the claimed invention, Takada is not relied upon to explicitly teach the limitation wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a display relating to an explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value,
In the same field analogous art Ambichl teaches wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a display relating to an explanatory variable having the degree of influence as equal to or more than a threshold value (see, e.g., Ambichl paragraph [0110]: “An exemplary event causality graph, showing causal relationships between events... The event graph shows event node records… and possible and probable causal relationships between those events as detected by a causality estimator that exceed a specific impact level threshold… and are thus modelled in form of event causality edge records, and one possible causal relationship 618 that has an impact level below impact level threshold and which is thus ignored for further calculations. More possible causal relationships that are suppressed due to a low impact factor may exist in this scenario, but they are not shown" [i.e., the hiding of causal relations due to a low impact below a threshold value, creates a contrasting display aspect]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada to incorporate the teachings of Ambichl to allow the generated cause-and-effect diagram to only include a display aspect different between a display relating to an explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or greater than a threshold value. Doing so would have allowed Takada to use Ambichl's method in order to “detect causal relationships between events describing different types of abnormal operation condition of monitored application components”, as suggested by Ambichl (see, e.g., Ambichl, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Independent Claim 10, Takada teaches A control method executed by a computer, comprising (see, e.g., Takada Col. 1 lines 15-17: “Embodiments described herein relate to… a regression analysis method”):
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable (see, e.g., Takada Col. 12 lines 6-9);
wherein, generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables in the cause-and- effect diagram (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4 and Col. 12 lines 21-33),
based on, among the degree of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable12 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 12 lines 16-20 and Col. 12 lines 21-27).
Although Takada substantially discloses the claimed invention Takada is not relied on for explicitly disclosing and generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables,
In the same field, analogous art Ambichl teaches and generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable13 and the plurality of explanatory variables (see, e.g., Ambichl paragraph [0102] paragraph [0140]).
Takada and Ambichl are analogous art because they are both directed to pattern recognition and statistical modeling (see, e.g., Takada, Col. 7 lines 23-34, Ambichl, paragraph [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada to incorporate the teachings of Ambichl to generate a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between objective and explanatory variables. Doing so would have allowed Takada to use Ambichl's method in order to “identify causal relationships between different identified abnormal operating conditions”, as suggested by Ambichl (see, e.g., Ambichl, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 11, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the method of claim 10.
Takada further teaches wherein the relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables is represented by one or more linear models (see, e.g., Takada Col. 12 lines 60-67),
and the degree of influence of the explanatory variable is represented by a coefficient by which the explanatory variable is multiplied in at least one linear model (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 12, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the method of claim 10.
Takada further teaches wherein the relationship information indicates, for each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a plurality of degrees of influence of the plurality of explanatory variables (see, e.g., Takada Col. 11 lines 41-49),
the control method further comprising computing, for each of the plurality of explanatory variables (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 33-36),
a statistical value of the plurality of degrees of influence indicated by the relationship information for the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 45-50);
and generating the cause-and-effect diagram by handling the statistical value as the degree of influence of the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 65-67 and Col. 6 lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 13, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the method of claim 10.
Takada further teaches making a second display aspect different between a third display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the first degree of influence within a first predetermined rank in order (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 5-6 lines 65-67, 1-6 and Cols 6-7 lines 65-6,1-4),
and a fourth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the first predetermined rank in order (see, e.g., Takada Col. 6 lines 3-23),
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, making a third display aspect different between a fifth display relating to the first explanatory variable as having the degree of influence within a second predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group, and a sixth display relating to the second explanatory variable as having the second degree of influence within the second predetermined rank in order among the other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group (see, e.g., Takada Col. 14 lines 46- 52, Col. 15 lines 45-50, Col. 16 lines 9-10 and Col. 16 lines 14-19),
and wherein the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable are of the each of the plurality of explanatory variables, one of the first explanatory variable and the second explanatory variable is the explanatory variable, one of the first degree of influence and the second degree of influence is the degree of influence, and one of the first display, the second display, the third display, the fourth display, the fifth display, the sixth display is the display14 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 16 lines 9-10, Col. 15 lines 50-52 and Col. 6 lines 17-23).
Although Takada substantially teaches the claimed invention, Takada is not relied upon to explicitly teach the limitation wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: making a first display aspect different between a first display relating to a first explanatory variable as having a first degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value and a second display relating to a second explanatory variable other than the first explanatory variable as having a second degree of influence equal to or more than the threshold value,
In the same field, analogous art Ambichl teaches wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: making a first display aspect different between a first display relating to a first explanatory variable as having a first degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value and a second display relating to a second explanatory variable other than the first explanatory variable as having a second degree of influence equal to or more than the threshold value (see, e.g., Ambichl paragraph [0110] and paragraph [0118]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada to incorporate the teachings of Ambichl to make a display aspect different between a display relating to an explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value and a display other than an explanatory variable with a degree of influence above or equal to a threshold value. Doing so would have allowed Takada to use Ambichl's method in order to “detect causal relationships between events describing different types of abnormal operation condition of monitored application components”, as suggested by Ambichl (see, e.g., Ambichl, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 14, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the method of claim 10.
Takada further teaches allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a second display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence within a predetermined rank in order (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 5-6 lines 65-67, 1-6 and Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4),
and for each group of the plurality of explanatory variables, allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a third display relating to the explanatory variable having the degree of influence as within the predetermined rank in order among other ones of the plurality of explanatory variables belonging to the group (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4, Col. 16 lines 14-18 and Col. 15 lines 45-50),
and wherein one of the first display, the second display, and the third display is the display15 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 65-67)
Although Takada substantially teaches the claimed invention, Takada is not relied upon to explicitly teach the limitation wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a display relating to an explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or more than a threshold value,
In the same field analogous art Ambichl teaches wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises any of: allowing the cause-and-effect diagram to include only a display relating to an explanatory variable having the degree of influence as equal to or more than a threshold value (see, e.g., Ambichl paragraph [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada to incorporate the teachings of Ambichl to allow the generated cause-and-effect diagram to only include a display aspect different between a display relating to an explanatory variable having the degree of influence equal to or greater than a threshold value. Doing so would have allowed Takada to use Ambichl's method in order to “detect causal relationships between events describing different types of abnormal operation condition of monitored application components”, as suggested by Ambichl (see, e.g., Ambichl, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Takada teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute operations comprising (see, e.g., Takada Col. 1 lines 15-17: “Embodiments described herein relate to a… non-transitory computer readable medium”):
acquiring relationship information indicating degrees of influence of each of a plurality of explanatory variables on an objective variable16 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 33-35 and Col. 12 lines 6-9);
wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises determining presence or absence of a display relating to each of the plurality of explanatory variables in the cause-and-effect diagram (see, e.g., Takada Cols. 11-12 lines 60-67, 1-4 and Col. 12 lines 21-33),
based on, among the degrees of influence of each of the plurality of explanatory variables, a degree of influence of an explanatory variable17 (see, e.g., Takada Col. 12 lines 16-20 and Col. 12 lines 21-27).
Although Takada substantially discloses the claimed invention Takada is not relied on for explicitly disclosing and generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables,
In the same field, analogous art Ambichl teaches generating, by using the relationship information, a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between the objective variable and the plurality of explanatory variables (see, e.g., Ambichl paragraph [0102], paragraph [0140] and paragraph [0210]).
Takada and Ambichl are analogous art because they are
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada to incorporate the teachings of Ambichl to generate a cause-and-effect diagram representing a relationship between objective and explanatory variables. Doing so would have allowed Takada to use Ambichl's method in order to “identify causal relationships between different identified abnormal operating conditions”, as suggested by Ambichl (see, e.g., Ambichl, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 20, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada further teaches wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram comprises outputting the display as a user interface (see, e.g., Takada Col. 5 lines 65-67: “The factor-influence degree display 312 outputs various data stored in the factor-influence degree storage 310 and displays the data via the user input/output I/F 4” and Col. 7 lines 43-49: “The user input/output I/F 4 is an interface for outputting information to the user and receiving an input from the user. For example, the user input/output I/F 4 includes an output device that outputs information to the user, such as a display, a tablet, a smartphone, a speaker, a printer, and an input device that receives an input from the user, such as a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel, a microphone” [i.e., the factor-influence (cause-and-effect) diagram is displayed on a user interface]).
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Ambichl, and further in view of Sen (US 20130297475 A1; hereinafter Sen).
Regarding Claim 6, as discussed above, Takada in view of Sen teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Although Takada in view of Ambichl substantially teaches the claimed invention, Takada in view of Ambichl is not relied upon to explicitly teach wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: outputting the cause-and-effect diagram;
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
and generating a graph by using the first data
In the same field, analogous art Sen teaches wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: outputting the cause-and-effect diagram (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0066]: “Cause-effect display 500 includes a graphical representation 512 of the quantity of shorted shares that have been executed at the node…and a causal relationship 516 that displays the causal relationships between nodes” and paragraph [0068]: “FIG. 7 shows a cause-effect display 700 of short position, analytics and process metrics)”);
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0068]: “For example, in order for cause-effect display 700 to display detailed information regarding the short position holdings for stocks for a sector, the user may select "stocks" node 708 that corresponds to the particular topic…” [i.e., explanatory variables (stocks, topics) are specified in the cause-effect diagram display by the user selection], "…Node panel 704 provides detailed sector and client-based short-position information that includes variables and metrics for each position relevant to the report for the user" [i.e., the variables and metrics (first data) for each position is a plurality of values for the short-position information (explanatory variables)]);
and generating a graph by using the first data (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0072]: “Cause-effect display 900 also includes a … board panel 914 that includes panels that display data and graphs by factors, metrics, and dimensions used in algorithms of selected short information reports”).
Takada, Ambichl and Sen are analogous art because they are each directed to pattern recognition and statistical modeling (see, e.g., Takada, Col. 7 lines 23-34, Ambichl, paragraph [0110] and Sen paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada in view of Ambichl to incorporate the teachings of Sen to output a cause-and-effect diagram, acquire data indicating a plurality of values of a specified explanatory variable in the cause-and-effect diagram, and generate a graph using the data. Doing so would have allowed Takada in view of Ambichl to use Sen's method in order to “present short position information in various formats and in varying levels of detail”, as suggested by Sen (see, e.g., Sen, paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 7, as discussed above, Takada in view of Sen teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Although Takada in view of Ambichl substantially teaches the claimed invention, Takada in view of Ambichl is not relied upon to explicitly teach generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
and generating, as the graph, any of a first graph representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable
and a second graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data
In the same field, analogous art Sen teaches generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0072]: “FIG. 9 shows a cause-effect display 900 of a full/expanded cause-effect of a position. Cause-effect display 900 displays a fully-expanded cause-effect depicting the effect and change in the total short position for the financial institution. The back panel 904 is a detail report in units of time (e.g., seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years) across which the short position information for a user specified period that system 102 analyzes on using various metrics and dimensions" [i.e., explanatory variables (short position information) are detailed over units of time (time series)], “…table panel 912 of cause-effect display 900 includes a valuation of short position information for each client of the financial institution within a time unit”);
and generating, as the graph, any of a first graph representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0072]: “FIG. 9 shows a cause-effect display 900 of a full/expanded cause-effect of a position…The back panel 904 is a detail report in units of time (e.g., seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years) across which the short position information for a user specified period that system 102 analyzes on using various metrics and dimensions…each panel of board panel 914 includes one or more factors and metrics that indicate the short position and change in the total short position for the time unit”),
and a second graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0069]: “Cause-effect display 700 also includes a scatter-plot panel 716 that displays the distribution of portfolios that topic concentrations represent, and for comparison purposes, cause-effect display 700 also includes a bar-chart panel 718 that displays the aggregate market value that the topic represents of the financial institution's settled short positions and recent short trading activity including the percentage such amounts represent of the total settled shorts and short sales recently executed at the financial institution”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada in view of Ambichl to incorporate the teachings of Sen to acquire time-series data on an explanatory variable, and generate a graph representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable or a graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data. Doing so would have allowed Takada in view of Ambichl to use Sen's method in order to “arrange short position information according to one or more report criteria, wherein the report criteria include by topic of display” and “determine the inclusion and exclusion rules of the short position information according to rule criteria including by attributes, by parameters, by indicators, and/or by metrics”, as suggested by Sen (see, e.g., Sen, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 8, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl and further in view of Sen teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Takada further teaches wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises generating screen data including both the first graph and the second graph (see, e.g., Takada Col. 11 lines 49-59: “As illustrated in the graphs for individual features in FIG. 8A… In contrast, as illustrated in FIG. 8B, unlike the above-described FIG. 7B… In this manner, by performing visualized display as a graph, the user can visually observe the influence of the similar feature on the objective variable” and Col. 17 lines 14-15: “A display 42 is provided as a visual interface, for example, the input/output I/F 4 of the analysis apparatus” [i.e., a first graph and second graph are displayed on a visual interface via a visual interface implying the generation of screen data]).
Regarding Claim 9, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl and further in view of Sen teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Takada further teaches wherein generating the cause-and-effect diagram further comprises allowing the graph to include second data on the objective variable (see, e.g., Takada Col. 11 lines 10-25: “FIGS. 7A, 7B, 8A, and 8B are diagrams illustrating display examples of factors and influence degrees… In the example of FIG. 7A, the amount of change of the objective variable in a case where each of the explanatory variables increases by one is greater in the feature 1” and Col. 11 lines 53-59: “In contrast, as illustrated in FIG. 8B, unlike the above-described FIG. 7B, in the case of the similar features, the influence degree of the individual features on the objective variables are substantially equal to each other. In this manner, by performing visualized display as a graph, the user can visually observe the influence of the similar feature on the objective variable” [i.e., different data on the objective variable is displayed in the diagram of cause-and-effect corresponding to second data on the objective variable]).
Regarding Claim 15, as discussed above, Takada in view of Sen teaches the method of claim 10.
Although Takada in view of Ambichl substantially teaches the claimed invention, Takada in view of Ambichl is not relied upon to explicitly teach further comprising: outputting the cause-and-effect diagram;
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable;
and generating a graph by using the first data
In the same field, analogous art Sen teaches further comprising: outputting the cause-and-effect diagram (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0066] and paragraph [0068]);
acquiring, when the explanatory variable is specified in the cause-and-effect diagram, first data indicating a plurality of values of the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0068]);
and generating a graph by using the first data (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0072]).
Takada, Ambichl and Sen are analogous art because they are each directed to pattern recognition and statistical modeling (see, e.g., Takada, Col. 7 lines 23-34, Ambichl, paragraph [0110] and Sen paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada in view of Ambichl to incorporate the teachings of Sen to output a cause-and-effect diagram, acquire data indicating a plurality of values of a specified explanatory variable in the cause-and-effect diagram, and generate a graph using the data. Doing so would have allowed Takada in view of Ambichl to use Sen's method in order to “present short position information in various formats and in varying levels of detail”, as suggested by Sen (see, e.g., Sen, paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 16, as discussed above, Takada in view of Sen teaches the method of claim 15.
Although Takada in view of Ambichl substantially teaches the claimed invention, Takada in view of Ambichl is not relied upon to explicitly teach further comprising: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable;
and generating, as the graph, any of a first graph, representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable,
a second graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data
In the same field, analogous art Sen teaches further comprising: acquiring time-series data on the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0072]);
and generating, as the graph, any of a first graph, representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0072]),
a second graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data (see, e.g., Sen paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada in view of Ambichl to incorporate the teachings of Sen to acquire time-series data on an explanatory variable, and generate a graph representing a temporal change of a value of the explanatory variable or a graph representing a result of statistically processing the time-series data. Doing so would have allowed Takada in view of Ambichl to use Sen's method in order to “arrange short position information according to one or more report criteria, wherein the report criteria include by topic of display” and “determine the inclusion and exclusion rules of the short position information according to rule criteria including by attributes, by parameters, by indicators, and/or by metrics”, as suggested by Sen (see, e.g., Sen, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 17, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl and further in view of Sen teaches the method of claim 16.
Takada further teaches further comprising generating screen data including both the first graph and the second graph (see, e.g., Takada Col. 11 lines 49-59).
Regarding Claim 18, as discussed above, Takada in view of Ambichl and further in view of Sen teaches the method of claim 15.
Takada further teaches further comprising: allowing the graph to include second data on the objective variable (see, e.g., Takada Col. 11 lines 10-25).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY A HALZEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5290. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEREMY HALZEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the term “objective variable”, which is recited at a high level of generality, is interpreted as any dependent variable, outcome, or phenomenon whose state or value is the subject of analysis or prediction (see, e.g., paragraph [0013] of the specification)
Under the BRI, in light of the specification, the term “explanatory variable”, which is recited at a level of generality, is interpreted as any independent variable or factor that is observed or hypothesized to influence or explain changes or variations in an objective variable (e.g., see paragraphs [0013-0016] of the specification)
3 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the term “objective variable”, which is recited at a high level of generality, is interpreted as any dependent variable, outcome, or phenomenon whose state or value is the subject of analysis or prediction (see, e.g., paragraph [0013] of the specification)
Under the BRI, in light of the specification, the term “explanatory variable”, which is recited at a level of generality, is interpreted as any independent variable or factor that is observed or hypothesized to influence or explain changes or variations in an objective variable (e.g., see paragraphs [0013-0016] of the specification)
5 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the term “objective variable”, which is recited at a high level of generality, is interpreted as any dependent variable, outcome, or phenomenon whose state or value is the subject of analysis or prediction (see, e.g., paragraph [0013] of the specification)
Under the BRI, in light of the specification, the term “explanatory variable”, which is recited at a level of generality, is interpreted as any independent variable or factor that is observed or hypothesized to influence or explain changes or variations in an objective variable (e.g., see paragraphs [0013-0016] of the specification)
7 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the term “objective variable”, which is recited at a high level of generality, is interpreted as any dependent variable, outcome, or phenomenon whose state or value is the subject of analysis or prediction (see, e.g., paragraph [0013] of the specification)
8 Under the BRI, in light of the specification, the term “explanatory variable”, which is recited at a level of generality, and for examination purposes is interpreted as any independent variable or factor that is observed or hypothesized to influence or explain changes or variations in an objective variable (e.g., see paragraphs [0013-0016] of the specification)
9 The claimed enumerated 3rd-6th displays, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification aren’t separate physical display devices (or even separate user interfaces/UIs), but are different display ‘aspects’/views relating to distinct explanatory variables. Furthermore the specification lacks ordinal assignments for the displays, so the claim is not limited to literally assigned display values.
10 The claimed enumerated 1st-6th displays, under the broadest BRI, in view of the specification aren’t separate physical display devices (or even separate user interfaces/UIs), but are different display ‘aspects’/views relating to distinct explanatory variables. Furthermore the specification lacks ordinal assignments for the displays, so the claim is not limited to literally assigned display values.
11 The claimed 1st-3rd displays, under the broadest BRI, in view of the specification aren’t separate physical display devices (or even separate user interfaces/UIs), but are different display ‘aspects’/views relating to distinct explanatory variables. Furthermore the specification lacks ordinal assignments for the displays, so the claim is not limited to literally assigned display values.
12 Under the BRI, in light of the specification, the term “explanatory variable”, which is recited at a level of generality, is interpreted as any independent variable or factor that is observed or hypothesized to influence or explain changes or variations in an objective variable (e.g., see paragraphs [0013-0016] of the specification)
13 Under the BRI, in light of the specification, the term “objective variable”, which is recited at a high level of generality, is interpreted as any dependent variable, outcome, or phenomenon whose state or value is the subject of analysis or prediction (see, e.g., paragraph [0013] of the specification)
14 The claimed enumerated 1st-6th displays, under the broadest BRI, in view of the specification aren’t separate physical display devices (or even separate user interfaces/UIs), but are different display ‘aspects’/views relating to distinct explanatory variables. Furthermore the specification lacks ordinal assignments for the displays, so the claim is not limited to literally assigned display values.
15 The claimed enumerated 1st-3rd displays, under the broadest BRI, in view of the specification aren’t separate physical display devices (or even separate user interfaces/UIs), but are different display ‘aspects’/views relating to distinct explanatory variables. Furthermore the specification lacks ordinal assignments for the displays, so the claim is not limited to literally assigned display values.
16 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the term “objective variable”, which is recited at a high level of generality, is interpreted as any dependent variable, outcome, or phenomenon whose state or value is the subject of analysis or prediction (see, e.g., paragraph [0013] of the specification)
17 Under the BRI, in light of the specification, the term “explanatory variable”, which is recited at a level of generality, and for examination purposes is interpreted as any independent variable or factor that is observed or hypothesized to influence or explain changes or variations in an objective variable (e.g., see paragraphs [0013-0016] of the specification)
Prosecution Insights