DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
[Claim 6] (Original) An inference method comprising:
executing abduction by applying inference knowledge including a plurality of rules that are represented by logical formulas to an observation logical formula obtained by representing an observed fact using a logical formula (executing abduction inference in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper); and
replacing one observation literal of a solution hypothesis generated by the abduction with another observation literal including a predicate that is the same as the predicate of the one observation literal (replacing literal in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
[Claim 7] (Original) The inference method according to claim 6, wherein, in the replacing, an observation literal unified with a hypothesis literal of the solution hypothesis is replaced with another observation literal including a predicate that is the same as the predicate of the observation literal (replacing literal including a predicate that is the same as the predicate of the observation literal is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites no additional element:
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
[Claim 8] (Original) The inference method according to claim 6, wherein, in the replacing, if a hypothesis literal derived from an observation literal is unified, the observation literal is replaced with another observation literal including a predicate that is the same as the predicate of the observation literal (replacing literal wherein the observation literal is replaced with another observation literal including a predicate that is the same as the predicate of the observation literal is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites no additional element:
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
[Claim 9] (Currently Amended) The inference method according to claim 6, wherein, in the replacing, if a term included in the observation literal to be replaced corresponds to a term that is in common between a plurality of literals of the rules, the observation literal is replaced with another observation literal including a term corresponding to the term that is in common (replacing literal wherein the observation literal is replaced with another observation literal including a term corresponding to the term that is in common is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites no additional element:
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
[Claim 10] (Currently Amended) The inference method according to claim 6, further comprising: evaluating each of the generated replacement combinations between observation literals using an evaluation function expressing a numerical relationship, and selecting a combination for which the evaluation result matches a preset condition (evaluating each of the generated replacement combinations in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites no additional element:
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1-5 are apparatus claims having similar limitation as claims 6-10 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 1 is An inference apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: (amounts to performing generic function of execution of stored instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
Claims 11-15 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims having similar limitation as claims 6-10 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 11 is A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that includes a program including instructions recorded thereon, the instructions causing a computer to carry out:(amounts to performing generic function of execution of stored instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Inoue et al (“Large-Scale Cost-Based Abduction in Full-Fledged First-Order Predicate Logic with Cutting Plane Inference” 2012)
[Claim 6] (Original) An inference method comprising:
executing abduction by applying inference knowledge including a plurality of rules that are represented by logical formulas to an observation logical formula obtained by representing an observed fact using a logical formula (See pg. 283 on abduction is inference, logical abduction using defined (implied rules) and observations); and
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
replacing one observation literal of a solution hypothesis generated by the abduction with another observation literal including a predicate that is the same as the predicate of the one observation literal (See pg. 284 on variable substitution where relation must be transitive (i.e. the same predicate)).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Claim 7] (Original) The inference method according to claim 6, wherein, in the replacing, an observation literal unified with a hypothesis literal of the solution hypothesis is replaced with another observation literal including a predicate that is the same as the predicate of the observation literal (See pg. 284 on variable substitution and unification where relation must be transitive (i.e. the same predicate)).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[Claim 8] (Original) The inference method according to claim 6, wherein, in the replacing, if a hypothesis literal derived from an observation literal is unified, the observation literal is replaced with another observation literal including a predicate that is the same as the predicate of the observation literal (See pg. 284 on variable substitution and unification).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[Claim 9] (Currently Amended) The inference method according to claim 6, wherein, in the replacing, if a term included in the observation literal to be replaced corresponds to a term that is in common between a plurality of literals of the rules, the observation literal is replaced with another observation literal including a term corresponding to the term that is in common (See pg. 284 on variable substitution and unification (Examiner Note: unification indicated common relationship)).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[Claim 10] (Currently Amended) The inference method according to claim 6, further comprising: evaluating each of the generated replacement combinations between observation literals using an evaluation function expressing a numerical relationship, and selecting a combination for which the evaluation result matches a preset condition (see pg. 283 on cost based abduction based on weighted combinatorial optimization (Examiner Note: cost/weighted optimization is a numerical relationship).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-5 are apparatus claims having similar limitation as claims 6-10 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 1 is An inference apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (See pg. 288 on runtime machine/apparatus):
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-15 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims having similar limitation as claims 6-10 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 11 is A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that includes a program including instructions recorded thereon, the instructions causing a computer to carry out (See pg. 288 on runtime machine/apparatus. Examiner Note: RAM is non-transitory computer readable storage medium):
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inoue et al (WO 2016067550 A1) disclose cost base abduction, rules, logical formula, rules with replacement literals.
Beltagy et al (“Representing Meaning with a Combination of Logical and Distributional Models” 2017) disclose abduction, rules, logical formula, rules with replacement literals. See abstract.
Dubois et al (“A Glance at Causality Theories for Artificial Intelligence” May 2020) abduction, rules, logical formula, rules with replacement literals. See abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUT WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm 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, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached at 5712703169. 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.
/LUT WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127