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 .
This communication is in response to Application filed on June 27, 2022. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/28/22 and 3/21/23 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘data retrieval module’, ‘data organization module’, ‘data calculation module’, ‘summarization and determining module’, ‘overall retrieval sub-module’, ‘data mining sub-module’, ‘specified retrieval sub-module’, ‘integration sub-module’, ‘data cleaning sub-module’, ‘graph drawing sub-module’, and ‘graph revising sub-module’; in claims 8, 10 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 9 recites the limitation "the technology cluster" in lines 6-7 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that the limitation reads “the technical cluster”.
Referring to claims 3 and 10, the claims recite the limitation “inputting the names of technical points to be analyzed and evaluated by using the science and technology knowledge graph to determine a plurality of keyword semantics of features of the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated through a relationship and a step distance between the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated” in lines 3-6 and 3-7 of the respective claims. It is unclear as to where the names of technical points are input. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the knowledge graph is used for the inputting of the names of technical points or the determining of keyword semantics and a step distance between the technical points. Examiner suggests rephrasing the limitation to make the functionality of the knowledge graph clear.
Claims 5 and 12 recite the limitation “fitting a model of the curve” in line 10. It is unclear as to which of the plurality of recitations of curves previously recited in the claims is being referenced by this limitation. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that all recitations of the curves reference the same curve.
All claims depending from the aforenoted claims are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Due to the 35 USC 112 rejections, the claims have been examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: establishing a database, an algorithm library and an index library, wherein the technology maturity judgment method further comprises following steps: step 1: performing a data retrieval in the database; step 2: performing a data calculation and organization on a retrieval result; step 3: performing a regression calculation on organized data to obtain a technical maturity index; and step 4: obtaining a judgment conclusion according to the technical maturity index.
The limitations of performing a data calculation and organization on a retrieval result and obtaining a judgment conclusion according to the technical maturity index, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer software. That is, other than reciting “a database, an algorithm library and an index library”, nothing in the claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. That is, the steps of performing a data calculation and organization on a retrieval result and obtaining a judgment conclusion according to the technical maturity index encompasses a user mentally performing the step of data calculation and organization of retrieved data and mentally performing the judgement conclusion according to a data index. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of performing a regression calculation on organized data to obtain a technical maturity index is considered a mathematical calculation and falls under the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional steps establishing a database, an algorithm library and an index library; and performing a data retrieval in the database.
The establishing a database, an algorithm library and an index library; and performing a data retrieval in the database steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data and performing retrieval of the stored data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of these additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer software (i.e. the database and libraries). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 database and libraries are generic data structures from which the data is retrieved. Furthermore, the establishing and performing a data retrieval in the database functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory). As such, the establishing and performing a data retrieval in the database steps are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 2 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental process" and “mathematical concepts”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 2 recites the additional limitations of: the database is a multi-dimensional science and technology database, and the multi-dimensional science and technology database comprises at least one of a patent library, a paper library, a project library, and a news library; the algorithm library comprises at least one of a science and technology knowledge graph and a technical cluster, and the science and technology knowledge graph and the technology cluster are configured for defining technical points, technology clusters, and related technical content; and indexes in the index library comprise at least one index of a technical influence, a technical influence immediacy, and a technology proportion of a core node patent.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of these additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer software (i.e. the database and the libraries). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 database and libraries are generic data structures from which the data is retrieved. Furthermore, the establishing and performing a data retrieval in the database functions (as in claim 1) are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory). As such, these limitations are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 2, therefore claim 3 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental process" and “mathematical concepts”.
The limitations of intersecting the keyword semantics obtained in step 11 with the technology cluster, and integrating data retrieval results of step 12 and step 13 are considered mental steps that can be performed in the human mind. As such they fall under the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 3 recites the additional limitations of: step 11: inputting the names of technical points to be analyzed and evaluated by using the science and technology knowledge graph to determine a plurality of keyword semantics of features of the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated through a relationship and a step distance between the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated; step 12: performing an overall data retrieval for the keyword semantics obtained in step 11 in the paper library, the project library, and the news library; step 13: performing an overall data retrieval for a result of intersection in the patent library.
The inputting the names of technical points to be analyzed and evaluated and the performing an overall data retrieval steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of inputting data and retrieving data from the libraries) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of these additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer software (i.e. the libraries). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 libraries are generic data structures from which the data is retrieved. Furthermore, the inputting and performing an overall data retrieval steps are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory). As such, these limitations are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 3, therefore claim 4 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental process" and “mathematical concepts”.
Claim 4 furthermore recites: step 21: performing data cleaning and disambiguation for at least one objective data in patents, papers, and projects, and performing a computer emotion calculation for non-objective data in news to calculate an authenticity and retain a reliable result; step 22: drawing a basic coordinate graph according to different vertical coordinates, wherein an abscissa of the basic coordinate graph represents time, and an ordinate represents at least one of a number of patent applications, a number of granted patents, a number of partition papers, a number of partition projects, and the news; and step 23: drawing a reference coordinate graph according to the different vertical coordinates, wherein an abscissa of the reference coordinate graph represents time, and an ordinate represents at least one index of the technical influence, the technical influence immediacy, and the core node patent.
All of these limitations recite mental steps that can be performed in the human mind. Specifically that the determination can be made mentally based on whether the conditions are met.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 4 does not recite any additional limitations other than the mental steps. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 4, therefore claim 5 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental process" and “mathematical concepts”.
Claim 5 furthermore recites:
step 31: fitting a curve f1(x)=a1x+b1, wherein x is time, f1(x) is at least one index of the technical influence, the technical influence immediacy, and the core node patent, a1 is a change slope corresponding to the at least one index, and b1 is a curve intercept;
step 32: fitting a curve f2(x)=a2x2+b2x+c, wherein x is time, f2(x) is at least one index of the technical influence, the technical influence immediacy, and the core node patent, a2 is a growth rate of the change slope corresponding to the at least one index, b2 is a fitting liner term parameter, and c is a curve intercept; and
step 33: fitting a model of the curve with reference to a least square method.
These steps recite mathematical calculations, and therefore fall under the ‘Mathematical concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 5 does not recite any additional limitations other than the mathematical steps. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites: a database, an algorithm library, and an index library: a data retrieval module configured to perform a data retrieval in the database; a data organization module configured to perform a data calculation and organization on a retrieval result; a data calculation module configured to perform a regression calculation on organized data to obtain a technical maturity index; and a summarizing and determining module configured to obtain a judgment conclusion according to the technical maturity index.
The limitations of a ‘data organization module configured to perform a data calculation and organization on a retrieval result’ and a ‘summarizing and determining module configured to obtain a judgment conclusion according to the technical maturity index’, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer software. That is, other than reciting “a database, an algorithm library and an index library”, nothing in the claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Furthermore, the recitation of a 'data organization module' as performing the step of calculation and organization on a retrieval result is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and its structure is described in the instant specification as ‘data organization module 240' [para 55, 60, Fig 2] which is software in the system used to perform the claimed function. The recitation of a ‘summarizing and determining module’ as performing the step of obtaining a judgment conclusion according to the technical maturity index is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and its structure is described in the instant specification as ‘summarizing and determining module 260’ [para 55, 62; Fig 2] which is also software in the system used to perform the claimed function [para 55, Fig 2]. That is, the steps of performing a data calculation and organization on a retrieval result and obtaining a judgment conclusion according to the technical maturity index encompasses a user mentally performing the step of data calculation and organization of retrieved data and mentally performing the judgement conclusion according to a data index. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitation of performing a regression calculation on organized data to obtain a technical maturity index is considered a mathematical calculation and falls under the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a ‘data calculation module’ as performing the step of performing a regression calculation on organized data to obtain a technical maturity index is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and its structure is described in the instant specification as ‘data calculation module 250’ [para 55, 61, Fig 2] which is software in the system used to perform the claimed function. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a database, an algorithm library, and an index library: a data retrieval module configured to perform a data retrieval in the database.
The performing a data retrieval in the database steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data and performing retrieval of the stored data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of the database, an algorithm library and an index library are also recited at a high level of generality and are merely generic computer software storage used to store the data. Furthermore, the performing a data retrieval step is recited as being performed by a ‘data retrieval module’ and is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and its structure is described in the instant specification as ‘data retrieval module 230’ [para 55, 59, Fig 2] which is software in the system used to perform the claimed function and is merely recitation of generic computer software.
The combination of these additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer software (i.e. the data retrieval module). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 data retrieval module are generic data software used to retrieve the data. Furthermore, the performing a data retrieval in the database function is similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory). As such, the performing a data retrieval in the database step is well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is similar to claim 2 and as such is rejected for the reasons addressed above with respect to the latter claim.
Claim 12 depends from claim 8 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 8, therefore claim 12 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental process" and “mathematical concepts”.
Claim 12 furthermore recites: wherein an operation of the data calculation module further comprises following steps:
step 31: fitting a curve f1(x)=a1x+b1, wherein x is time, f1(x) is at least one index of the technical influence, the technical influence immediacy, and the core node patent, a1 is a change slope corresponding to the at least one index, and b1 is a curve intercept;
step 32: fitting a curve f2(x)=a2x2+b2x+c, wherein x is time, f2(x) is at least one index of the technical influence, the technical influence immediacy, and the core node patent, a2 is a growth rate of the change slope corresponding to the at least one index, b2 is a fitting liner term parameter, and c is a curve intercept; and
step 33: fitting a model of the curve with reference to a least square method.
These steps recite mathematical calculations, and therefore fall under the ‘Mathematical concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 12 does not recite any additional limitations other than the mathematical steps. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6, 7, and 13-15 depend from claims 5 and 12 and thus include all the limitations of claims 5 and 12, therefore claims 6, 7, and 13-15 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental process" and “mathematical concepts”.
Claims 6, 7, and 13-15 furthermore recite:
(claims 6,13) wherein the judgment conclusion further comprises determining the technology maturity is in among one of the following stages: a germination stage, a growth stage, a mature stage, and a decline stage;
(claims 7, 14) wherein the technology maturity is determined as the germination stage when an ordinate data body in the basic coordinate graph is the number of partition papers, and the germination stage includes an early germination stage and a germination to growth stage; wherein the technology maturity is determined to be in the early germination stage when determination conditions below are met:
1) the technical influence of paper is greater than the technical influence of patent, or the technical influence of patent is zero but the technical influence of paper is a positive value; and 2) a.sub.1 is greater than 1, and a.sub.2 is greater than 0 in the curves of the technical influence of paper;
wherein the technology maturity is determined to be in the germination to growth stage when the determination conditions below are met:
1) the papers gradually transition from SCI papers to EI papers, and the technical influence of paper is greater than the technical influence of patent; 2) a.sub.1 is greater than 0, a.sub.2 is close to 0 or less than 0 in the curves of the technical influence of paper, and a growth rate is decreased; 3) a.sub.1 is less than 0, a.sub.2 is close to 0 or greater than 0 in curves of the technical influence immediacy of paper; 4) a.sub.1 is greater than 0, and a.sub.2 is greater than 0 in curves of the technical influence of patent; and 5) a.sub.1 is greater than 0, and a.sub.2 is greater than 0 in curves of the core node patent;
(claims 7, 15) wherein the technology maturity is determined to be in the growth stage when the determination conditions below are met:
1) a number of EI papers exceeds a number of SCI papers in ordinate data bodies in the basic coordinate graph; 2) a growth rate of patent data tends to be stable, the technical influence of patent gradually approaches the technical influence of paper, and the technology proportion of the core node patent rises; 3) a.sub.1 is close to 0 in the curve of the technical influence of paper; 4) a.sub.1 is less than 0, a.sub.2 is close to 0 or greater than 0 in the curves of the technical influence immediacy of paper; 5) a.sub.1 is greater than 0, and a.sub.2 is close to 0 or less than 0 in the curves of the technical influence of patent; 6) a.sub.1 is less than 0, and a.sub.2 is close to 0 or less than 0 in the curves of the technical influence immediacy of patent; and 7) a.sub.1 is greater than 0, and a.sub.2 is close to 0 gradually in the curves of the core node patent;
wherein the technology maturity is determined to be in the mature stage when the determination conditions below are met:
1) the patent data exceeds paper data in the ordinate data bodies in the basic coordinate graph, and the patent data in the basic coordinate graph tends to be stable, and an engineering research project and news data begin to appear; 2) in the reference coordinate graph, the technical influence of patent exceeds the technical influence of paper, the technical influence immediacy is lower than that in the germination stage, and the technology proportion of the core node patent tends to be stable; 3) a.sub.1 is less than 0 in the curve of the technical influence of paper; 4) a.sub.1 is less than 0 in the curve of the technical influence immediacy of paper; 5) a.sub.1 is close to or less than 0, and a.sub.2 is close to 0 or less than 0 in the curves of the technical influence of patent; 6) a.sub.1 is less than 0, and a.sub.2 is close to 0 or less than 0 in the curves of the technical influence immediacy of patent; and 7) a.sub.1 is close to or less than 0, and a.sub.2 is less than 0 in the curves of the core node patent; and
wherein the technology maturity is determined to be in the decline stage when the determination conditions below are met:
1) the news data is a main data body, and both the patent data and the paper data fall; 2) a.sub.1 is less than −1 in the curve of the technical influence of paper; 3) a.sub.1 is less than −1 in the curve of the technical influence patent; and 4) a.sub.1 is less than −1 in the curve of the core node patent.
All of these limitations recite mental steps that can be performed in the human mind. Specifically that the determination can be made mentally based on whether the conditions are met.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 6, 7 and 13-15 do not recite any additional limitations other than the mental steps. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0294232 by Gibbs et al (hereafter Gibbs).
Referring to claim 1, Gibbs discloses a technology maturity judgment method based on science and technology data [Abstract], comprising establishing a database [database of patent documents, para 11, 20, 33], an algorithm library [software database, para 20; data corpus including documents that are most closely related to target patent document, para 33-34] and an index library [indices of most closely related patent publications, para 32], wherein the technology maturity judgment method further comprises following steps:
step 1: performing a data retrieval in the database [N number of patent related documents relevant to a target document retrieved from database in response to natural language search query, para 34; Fig 2, step 202-204, para 42];
step 2: performing a data calculation and organization on a retrieval result [enforceability status is determined for the data and recorded, Fig 2, step 208, para 42];
step 3: performing a regression calculation on organized data to obtain a technical maturity index [regression models are used to measure target patent document against the N number of most closely related patent documents, including determining the components/indices that contribute to the value, para 38-39; LSA applied to closely related patent documents, Fig 2, step 210, para 43]; and
step 4: obtaining a judgment conclusion according to the technical maturity index [Patent Factor Index report is generated based on scoring one or more of the indices, para 42, Fig 2, step 246, para 64].
Referring to claim 8, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a system [Gibbs, Abstract] comprising modules [modules, para 10, 23]. As such, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claims 2 and 9, Gibbs discloses that the database is a multi-dimensional science and technology database, and the multi-dimensional science and technology database comprises at least one of a patent library [patent documents in corpus, para 33], a paper library [papers in corpus, para 33], a project library [dissertations in corpus, para 33], and a news library [technical articles in corpus, para 33];
the algorithm library comprises at least one of a science and technology knowledge graph and a technical cluster, and the science and technology knowledge graph and the technology cluster are configured for defining technical points, technology clusters, and related technical content [first N number of patent publications most closely related to target patent document determined and compiled as comparative collection, para 34]; and
indexes in the index library comprise at least one index of a technical influence [contribution of patent to technology advancement, para 59], a technical influence immediacy, and a technology proportion of a core node patent [competitive position, para 57].
Novel and/or Non-obvious Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of novel and/or non-obvious subject matter:
Referring to claim 3, the prior art does not teach the limitations of the claim, namely: wherein step 1 further comprises following sub-steps:
step 11: inputting the names of technical points to be analyzed and evaluated by using the science and technology knowledge graph to determine a plurality of keyword semantics of features of the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated through a relationship and a step distance between the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated;
step 12: performing an overall data retrieval for the keyword semantics obtained in step 11 in the paper library, the project library, and the news library;
step 13: intersecting the keyword semantics obtained in step 11 with the technology cluster, performing an overall data retrieval for a result of intersection in the patent library; and
step 14: integrating data retrieval results of step 12 and step 13, which are not taught by the prior art.
The closest prior art Gibbs (US 2007/0294232) discloses performing Latent Semantic Analysis between a target patent document and the N most closely related patent documents from a corpus using various components and indices to generate a Patent Factor Index (PFI) [Fig 2 and corresponding portions of specification], however does not disclose evaluating the technical points to be analyzed by using a science and technology knowledge graph or using a step distance between the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated, as claimed. Gibbs also does not teach the overall data retrieval for the keyword semantics obtained in step 11, as claimed.
It is for these reasons that claim 3 is found to be novel and/or non-obvious.
Claims 4-7 depending from claim 3 are also found to be novel and/or non-obvious by virtue of their dependencies.
Referring to claim 10, the prior art does not teach the limitations of the claim, namely:
an overall retrieval sub-module configured to input the names of technical points to be analyzed and evaluated by using the science and technology knowledge graph to determine a plurality of keyword semantics of features of the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated through a relationship and a step distance between the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated;
a data mining sub-module configured to perform an overall data retrieval for the keyword semantics obtained in step 11 in the paper library, the project library, and the news library;
a specified retrieval sub-module configured to intersect the keyword semantics obtained by the overall retrieval sub-module with the technology cluster, performing an overall data retrieval for a result of intersection in the patent library; and
an integration sub-module configured to integrate data retrieval results of the data mining sub-module and the specified retrieval sub-module, which are not taught by the prior art.
The closest prior art Gibbs (US 2007/0294232) discloses performing Latent Semantic Analysis between a target patent document and the N most closely related patent documents from a corpus using various components and indices to generate a Patent Factor Index (PFI) [Fig 2 and corresponding portions of specification], however does not disclose evaluating the technical points to be analyzed by using a science and technology knowledge graph or using a step distance between the technical points to be analyzed and evaluated, as claimed. Gibbs also does not teach the overall data retrieval for the keyword semantics obtained, as claimed.
It is for these reasons that claim 10 is found to be novel and/or non-obvious.
Claim 11 depending from claim 10 is found to be novel and/or non-obvious by virtue of its dependencies.
Referring to claim 12, the prior art does not teach the limitations of the claim, namely:
step 31: fitting a curve f1(x)=a1x+b1, wherein x is time, f1(x) is at least one index of the technical influence, the technical influence immediacy, and the core node patent, a1 is a change slope corresponding to the at least one index, and b1 is a curve intercept;
step 32: fitting a curve f2 (x)=a2x2+b2x+c, wherein x is time, f2(x) is at least one index of the technical influence, the technical influence immediacy, and the core node patent, a2 is a growth rate of the change slope corresponding to the at least one index, b2 is a fitting liner term parameter, and c is a curve intercept; and
step 33: fitting a model of the curve with reference to a least square method, which are not taught by the prior art.
The closest prior art Gibbs (US 2007/0294232) discloses performing Latent Semantic Analysis between a target patent document and the N most closely related patent documents from a corpus using various components and indices to generate a Patent Factor Index (PFI) [Fig 2 and corresponding portions of specification], and generating an Adoption Diffusion S-Curve to help a patent evaluator to determine the age of the technology [para 63] however it does not does not disclose the claimed curve fitting limitations or fitting a model of the curve with reference to a least square method, as claimed.
It is for these reasons that claim 12 is found to be novel and/or non-obvious.
Claims 13-15 depending from claim 12 are found to be novel and/or non-obvious by virtue of their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached on 571-272-3645. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2167
/C.M.S/
/ROBERT W BEAUSOLIEL JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2167