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
The amendment filed January 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 6-14 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 14, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 101, Applicant argues the Office characterizes outputting a matrix diagram as insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine conventional activity. Applicant argues that even if outputting a matrix diagram is conventional, the independent claims use the output in a structured and constrained manner by defining specific axes, region divisions, and reference values. Applicant argues that the claims as a whole are analogous to Example 41 of the 2109 PEG by transforming information to “enable users to more easily identify the influence of a plurality of variables on output data across multiple periods” (e.g., instant remarks).
Regarding these rejections, the Examiner notes that outputting a matrix diagram was characterized as an additional mental process performed with aid of pen and paper, given its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is further exemplified by Figures 3 and 4 of the instant specification, which illustrate matrix diagrams which may be drawn by a human using pen and paper. Assuming instead that outputting a matrix diagram is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine conventional activity, the outputting of a matrix diagram, in combination with the remaining limitations, does not provide a practical application for the recited abstract ideas. Applicant’s argument that the matrix diagram enables user to identify variables further emphasizes that the claims as a whole do not provide a practical application. Firstly, identifying variables is merely another mental process. Secondly, even if identifying variables were a practical application, the step of identifying is not claimed. In contrast, the transmitting limitation in Example 41 of the 2019 PEG ties the recited abstract ideas into a practical application using the mathematical formulae and relationships to enable encrypted communication between computers, wherein the encrypted communication is a specific practical application that is recited in the claims. An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C 103, Applicant argues that Ihara does not disclose information on how to obtain the reference values dividing the blocks in the matrix diagram in figure 2A of Ihara. Applicant further argues that the past data used as an explanatory variable in Natsumeda to calculate an objective variable does not correspond to information to obtain a plurality of divided regions.
Regarding these arguments, the Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention is considered to be merely using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way as in MPEP § 2143(I)(C). In the hypothetical combination of Natsumeda and Ihara, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used the past information of Natsumeda to define the low and high frequency/occurrence axes of Ihara, thereby basing the divided regions of figure 2A in Ihara on historical processing information. An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1, 2, and 6-10 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. An information processing device comprising: at least one processor configured to:
calculate a first degree of influence of a plurality of variables on output data, and a frequency at which the plurality of variables are selected as a variable influencing the output data, based on K first models, the K first models being models estimated using a plurality of pieces of input data including the plurality of variables, the plurality of input data being obtained in K periods, K being an integer of 2 or more, each of the K first models receiving input of the input data including the plurality of variables and outputting the output data;
output the first degree of influence and the frequency in association with each other.
output a matrix diagram in which the first degree of influence is taken on a first axis and the frequency is taken on a second axis, the matrix diagram including a plurality of regions divided by a first reference value of the first degree of influence and a second reference value of the frequency; and
calculate at least one of the first reference value or the second reference value based on a history of processing executed for a variable selected as the variable influencing the output data among the plurality of variables.
The limitations calculate a first degree of influence […] based on K first models, output a matrix diagram, and calculate at least one of the first reference value or the second reference value are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes (i.e., mental observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions) and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, or mathematical calculations). A user can perform the mental evaluations of calculating a first degree of influence, outputting a matrix diagram, and calculating a reference value . A user may use pen and paper to perform the calculations and draw the matrix diagram. Furthermore, the calculations are performed using the K models, wherein the K models are mathematical regression models as in Equation (2) in the instant specification.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
each of the K first models receiving input of the input data including the plurality of variables and outputting the output data (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
output the first degree of influence and the frequency in association with each other. (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
output a matrix diagram (While identified as a mental process in Step 2A prong I, this limitation may also constitute insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering given its broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
in which the first degree of influence is taken on a first axis and the frequency is taken on a second axis, the matrix diagram including a plurality of regions divided by a first reference value of the first degree of influence and a second reference value of the frequency (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“Information processing device” and “at least one processor” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “information processing device” and “at least one processor” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activities of output the first degree of influence and the frequency in association with each other and output a matrix diagram are considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites The device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calculate the first degree of influence being one of a mean, a median, and a maximum of a second degree of influence of a plurality of variables on the output data in each of one or more periods in which the plurality of variables have been selected as the variable influencing the output data, among the K periods; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user may use pen and paper to calculate a mean, medium, or maximum.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2i s ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output change information indicating a change in the first degree of influence between at least two periods of the K periods; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has increased and the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has decreased, in mutually different modes; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites The device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has increased and the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has decreased, as pieces of information indicating mutually different directions; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites The device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has increased and the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has decreased, in mutually different colors; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites The device according to claim 1, The device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output information indicating that any of the plurality of variables is selected in an L-th period, L being an integer satisfying 1 : L < K, but is not selected in an (L + 1)-th period, and information indicating that any of the plurality of variables is not selected in the L-th period but is selected in the (L + 1)-th period; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 12 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
No: Claim 12 -is not directed to a patent eligible statutory category.
Claim 12 is directed to “A computer program product.” Under step 1 of the 35 U.S.C 101 analysis determining statutory category, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, see MPEP § 2106.03. The claim is directed to a product lacking a physical or tangible structure in the form of an organizational structure, such as a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”). “A computer program product” could be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Applicant may amend the claim to “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program including programmed instructions,” to ensure that the claim is eligible under step 1.
The remaining limitations of Claim 12 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “computer program product,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “programmed instructions” represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f), and do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites The device according to claim 1, wherein the history of the processing includes a plurality of degrees of influence calculated at implementation of the processing; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and the at least one processor is further configured to calculate, as the first reference value, one of a mean, a median, a maximum, a minimum, and quantile of the plurality of degrees of influence included in the history of the processing; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 13 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites The device according to claim 1, wherein the history of the processing includes a plurality of frequencies calculated at implementation of the processing; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and the at least one processor is further configured to calculate, as the second reference value, one of a mean, a median, a maximum, a minimum, and quantile of the plurality of frequencies included in the history of the processing; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 13 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihara et al. (EP3128385 B1), hereinafter Ihara, in view of Natsumeda (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0315961 A1), hereinafter Natsumeda.
Regarding Claim 1, Natsumeda teaches An information processing device comprising: one or more processors (“The system analyzing device 1 can be configured by a computer device including hardware elements illustrated in FIG. 2. In FIG. 2, the system analyzing device 1 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 1001, a memory 1002, an output device 1003, an input device 1004, and a network interface 1005.”) (e.g., paragraph [0062]).
configured to: calculate a first degree of influence of a plurality of variables on output data (“The analysis model acquisition unit 11 acquires an analysis model of the monitored system 9. The analysis model is a model that includes at least one many-body correlation model based on at least parts of a plurality of data items constituting the state information of the monitored system 9 [...] The many-body correlation model is a correlation model that includes a regression equation configured by using at least three data items among such correlation models.”) (e.g., paragraph [0064]).
based on K first models, the K first models being models estimated using a plurality of pieces of input data including the plurality of variables (“The many-body correlation model is a correlation model that includes a regression equation configured by using at least three data items among such correlation models.”) (e.g., paragraph [0064]).
the first model receiving input of the input data including the plurality of variables and outputting the output data (“For example, the standard contribution acquisition unit 12 may acquire information stored in the memory 1002 as standard contribution of each explanatory variable data item for each many-body correlation model.”) (e.g., paragraph [0067]).
and calculate at least one of the first reference value or the second reference value based on a history of processing executed for a variable selected as the variable influencing the output data among the plurality of variables (“In the present example embodiment, as the regression equation of the many-body correlation model, the example of the regression equation in the equation (2) has been described. In the equation (2), a value of a past (past value) of the data item nay be used as the explanatory variable,” wherein the past values are interpreted as a history of processing.) (e.g., paragraph [0229]).
However, Natsumeda does not appear to specifically teach the system configured to calculate […] a frequency at which the plurality of variables are selected as a variable influencing the output data, the plurality of input data being obtained in K periods, K being an integer of 2 or more and output the first degree of influence and the frequency in association with each other
On the other hand, Ihara, which relates to system analysis, does teach a system configured to calculate a frequency at which the plurality of variables are selected as a variable influencing the output data (“The "trouble occurrence frequency" represents likelihood of trouble occurrence such as a damage,” wherein the occurrence frequency may be instead used to represent a selection frequency.) (e.g., paragraph [0027]).
the plurality of input data being obtained in K periods, K being an integer of 2 or more (“For instance, the first factor and the second factor can be "influence" and "trouble occurrence frequency" that are disclosed in Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2013-88828.” Sekino et al. (JP2013-088828A), hereinafter Sekino, discloses “The periodic inspection plan calculation unit (140) calculates a periodic inspection plan from the calculated inspection period and the data recorded in the equipment table (210) and the inspection result table (220) [...] The “defect occurrence frequency” is calculated from the year and the inspection result in the inspection result table when the inspection period is calculated, and a value is set by the inspection period calculation unit (130).” (e.g., Sekino; page 3, paragraphs 2 and 3).) (e.g., paragraph [0041]).
output the first degree of influence and the frequency in association with each other (“Fig. 2A is a view showing one example of the window 30 displaying risks of steam traps. The window 30 constituted of a matrix displaying area 40, an operation icon displaying area 45, etc. and is displayed on the display unit 23. In the matrix displaying area 40, there is displayed a device risk evaluation matrix 41 in the form of coordinate system defined by a horizontal axis representing importance and a vertical axis representing occurrence frequency of trouble.”) (e.g., paragraph [0026]).
output a matrix diagram in which the first degree of influence is taken on a first axis and the frequency is taken on a second axis (“Fig. 2A is a view showing one example of the window 30 displaying risks of steam traps. The window 30 constituted of a matrix displaying area 40, an operation icon displaying area 45, etc. and is displayed on the display unit 23. In the matrix displaying area 40, there is displayed a device risk evaluation matrix 41 in the form of coordinate system defined by a horizontal axis representing importance and a vertical axis representing occurrence frequency of trouble.”) (e.g., paragraph [0026]).
the matrix diagram including a plurality of regions divided by a first reference value of the first degree of influence and a second reference value of the frequency (Figure 2A discloses a matrix diagram, wherein the importance and occurrence frequency axes are divided into several regions from low to high importance/ occurrence frequency.) (e.g., figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Natsumeda with Ihara. The claimed invention is considered to be merely using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Natsumeda teaches a device for processing information configured to calculate a degree of influence on a plurality of variables on output data. However, Natsumeda does not appear to teach calculating a selection frequency, the input data being selected in K periods, or outputting the degree of influence and association. On the other hand, Ihara does teach a method for calculating occurrence frequency, analogous to selection frequency, based on information obtained in a plurality of periods, and outputting an occurrence frequency in association with an importance. As both Natsumeda and Ihara relate to analyzing systems (e.g., Natsumeda, paragraph [0001]; Ihara, paragraph [0001]), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the occurrence frequency calculation of Ihara with the influence calculation of Natsumeda and output the influence and selection frequency in a matrix diagram as in Ihara. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to actually visualize the system analysis of Natsumeda, and improving Natsumeda according to the techniques of Ihara would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Natsumeda with Ihara in order to visualize the selection frequency of explanatory variables in relation with their importance.
Regarding Claim 2, Natsumeda in view of Ihara teaches The device according to claim 1. Natsumeda further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calculate the first degree of influence being one of a mean, a median, and a maximum of a second degree of influence of a plurality of variables on the output data in each of one or more periods in which the plurality of variables have been selected as the variable influencing the output data, among the K periods (The Examiner notes the use of one of, and the prior art provides an average, i.e., mean. “Hereinafter, the statistical amount of contribution will be referred to as standard contribution. The statistical amount used as the standard contribution is preferably a statistical amount enabling an average value of contribution to be acquired. For example, the statistical amount may be an average value or a median value of contribution.”) (e.g., paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claim 6, Natsumeda in view of Ihara teaches The device according to claim 1. Ihara further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output change information indicating a change in the first degree of influence between at least two periods of the K periods (“States of steam traps are stored and managed by a management server device 500 shown in Fig. 1. The terminal device 200 periodically receives operating states of steam traps from the management server device 500 and update a device risk evaluation table 900 shown in Fig. 12. And, the terminal device 200 generates the above-described device risk evaluation matrix 410 based on this evaluation table 900.” Updating the risk evaluation table is interpreted as outputting change information, wherein the updating is performed between the periodic reception of operating states.) (e.g., paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 7, Natsumeda in view of Ihara teaches The device according to claim 6. Ihara further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has increased and the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has decreased, in mutually different modes (“Further, the plot images 420 of this embodiment are displayed in different modes (blackened circle, blackened triangle, blackened square) according to operating states of the corresponding steam traps. The blackened circle plot image 420A indicates a normal state in which the corresponding steam trap is under a normal operating state. The blackened triangular plot image 420B indicates an abnormal state in which the corresponding steam trap is under an abnormal sate due to a failure or the like.” The circle, triangle, and square are interpreted as different modes, wherein the different shapes indicate abnormal operation, further wherein the abnormal operation increases risk and likelihood of trouble occurrence.) (e.g., paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 8, Natsumeda in view of Ihara teaches The device according to claim 7. Ihara further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has increased and the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has decreased, as pieces of information indicating mutually different directions (“Further, in this embodiment, in the device risk evaluation matrix such as the one shown in Fig. 2B, as a displaying mode allowing identification of plot images of steam traps constituting a same process, there was employed an arrangement of the plot images being surrounded by process circles. However, the invention is not particularly limited thereto. For instance, plot images in a different mode for each process can be employed. Specifically, for each process, a plot image having a different color or different design or shape can be employed. Incidentally, in case a plot image of a different shape is employed for each process, respecting an operating state of a steam trap, the plot image can have a different color for each process according to an operating state.” The different design or shape is interpreted as comprising shapes indicating directions.) (e.g., paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 9, Natsumeda in view of Ihara teaches The device according to claim 7. Ihara further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has increased and the change information indicating that the first degree of influence has decreased, in mutually different colors (“Further, in this embodiment, in the device risk evaluation matrix such as the one shown in Fig. 2B, as a displaying mode allowing identification of plot images of steam traps constituting a same process, there was employed an arrangement of the plot images being surrounded by process circles. However, the invention is not particularly limited thereto. For instance, plot images in a different mode for each process can be employed. Specifically, for each process, a plot image having a different color or different design or shape can be employed. Incidentally, in case a plot image of a different shape is employed for each process, respecting an operating state of a steam trap, the plot image can have a different color for each process according to an operating state.”) (e.g., paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 10, Natsumeda in view of Ihara teaches The device according to claim 1. Natsumeda further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output information indicating that any of the plurality of variables is selected in an L-th period (“The many-body correlation model generation unit 211 selects, among the data item group included in the state information, one arbitrary data item as an objective variable, and selects at least two arbitrary data items as explanatory variables.”) (e.g., paragraph [0124]).
L being an integer satisfying 1 : L < K, but is not selected in an (L + 1)-th period (“The predetermined period is a learning period for determining the parameters, and the state information is between N0 to N1 (N≤N1). Here, N0 represents an index indicating the oldest time of the state information used for constructing the regression equation. N1 represents an index indicating the latest time of the state information used for constructing the regression equation.”) (e.g., paragraph [0127]).
and information indicating that any of the plurality of variables is not selected in the L-th period but is selected in the (L + 1)-th period (“For example, specifically, the many-body correlation model re-generation unit may select, from data items not selected as representative data items or secondary representative data items, a data item more suitable than the already selected secondary representative data items as a new secondary representative data item,” wherein the re-generation is selected in period N1.) (e.g., paragraph [0372]).
Regarding Claim 11, Natsumeda teaches An information processing method implemented in an information processing device (“The system analyzing device 1 can be configured by a computer device including hardware elements illustrated in FIG. 2. In FIG. 2, the system analyzing device 1 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 1001, a memory 1002, an output device 1003, an input device 1004, and a network interface 1005.”) (e.g., paragraph [0062]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 11 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12, Natsumeda teaches A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium including programmed instructions, the instructions causing a computer to execute (“The system analyzing device 1 can be configured by a computer device including hardware elements illustrated in FIG. 2. In FIG. 2, the system analyzing device 1 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 1001, a memory 1002, an output device 1003, an input device 1004, and a network interface 1005.”) (e.g., paragraph [0062]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 12 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 13, Natsumeda in view of Ihara teaches The device according to claim 1. Natsumeda further teaches wherein the history of the processing includes a plurality of degrees of influence calculated at implementation of the processing (“The analysis model acquisition unit 11 acquires an analysis model of the monitored system 9. The analysis model is a model that includes at least one many-body correlation model based on at least parts of a plurality of data items constituting the state information of the monitored system 9 [...] The many-body correlation model is a correlation model that includes a regression equation configured by using at least three data items among such correlation models.” The analysis model may be acquired and executed at any time, including at implementation of a processing.) (e.g., paragraph [0064]).
and the at least one processor is further configured to calculate, as the first reference value, one of a mean, a median, a maximum, a minimum, and quantile of the plurality of degrees of influence included in the history of the processing (The Examiner notes the use of one of, and the prior art provides an average, i.e., mean. “Hereinafter, the statistical amount of contribution will be referred to as standard contribution. The statistical amount used as the standard contribution is preferably a statistical amount enabling an average value of contribution to be acquired. For example, the statistical amount may be an average value or a median value of contribution.”) (e.g., paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claim 14, Natsumeda in view of Ihara teaches The device according to claim 1. Ihara further teaches wherein the history of the processing includes a plurality of frequencies calculated at implementation of the processing (“The "trouble occurrence frequency" represents likelihood of trouble occurrence such as a damage,” wherein the frequency may be calculated at any time, including an implementation of the processing) (e.g., paragraph [0027]).
Natsumeda further teaches and the at least one processor is further configured to calculate, as the second reference value, one of a mean, a median, a maximum, a minimum, and quantile of the plurality of frequencies included in the history of the processing (The Examiner notes the use of one of, and the prior art provides an average, i.e., mean. “Hereinafter, the statistical amount of contribution will be referred to as standard contribution. The statistical amount used as the standard contribution is preferably a statistical amount enabling an average value of contribution to be acquired. For example, the statistical amount may be an average value or a median value of contribution.”) (e.g., paragraph [0106]).
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 KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189