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 .
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes the claim is directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations of:
generate, based on first observation literals included in a first observation logical formula that represents an observation fact using a logical formula, a second observation logical formula including second observation literals expressing a numerical relationship of the first observation literals, and add the second observation logical formula to the first observation logical formula: (mental process, a human can, with pen and paper come up with these logical statements by looking at data and writing it down or using their head)
execute abduction by applying inference knowledge including a plurality of rules that are represented by logical formulas to the first observation logical formula and the second observation logical formula (mental process, a human can reach logical conclusions using their head or through pen and paper by looking at the data and coming up with it themselves)
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The limitations of:
one or more memories storing instructions; (generic computer hardware to carry out the abstract idea)
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: (generic computer hardware to carry out the abstract idea)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
one or more memories storing instructions; (generic computer hardware to carry out the abstract idea)
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: (generic computer hardware to carry out the abstract idea)
Note that independent claims 4 and 7 recite the same substantial subject matter as independent claim 1, only differing in embodiments. The differences in embodiments do not meaningfully change the above analysis and therefore the claims are subject to the same rejection.
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 8 recite the rules are logical formulas that express numerical relationships, an elaboration of the mental process and something that a human would still write down.
Dependent claims 3, 6, and 9 recite the statements having costs and executing abduction, further elaboration of the mental process and something that a human can calculate by looking at the data.
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 3, 6, and 9 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.
Regarding the above claims, the language and the structure of the claims makes it unclear what steps follow which. The excessive commas do not make it clear which values depend on which values. For example, the claim recites the cost taking a value such that a result obtained by removing […] from a result obtained by executing in which […] is added to the first literals, is the same as the hypothesis […] in a result […].
This appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The claim is interpreted as best could below.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul, Gabriele. "Approaches to abductive reasoning: an overview."
Regarding claim 4, Paul teaches “an inference method comprising: generating, based on first observation literals included in a first observation logical formula that represents an observation fact using a logical formula” (pg. 4 §2.1 “Ω is a set of observations” and
PNG
media_image1.png
58
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which shows observations in logical formulas), “a second observation logical formula including second observation literals expressing a numerical relationship of the first observation literals, and add the second observation logical formula to the first observation logical formula” (pg. 4 §2.1 “In set-cover-based approaches a set of explanations is found by selecting a suitable subset from a given set of hypotheses. This subset should best account for the observations and is determined by coverings, parsimony, plausibility or another suitable selection criterion” i.e. generated based on the first observations and pg. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
228
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and previous §2.1
PNG
media_image3.png
178
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
): and
“executing abduction by applying inference knowledge including a plurality of rules that are represented by logical formulas to the first observation logical formula and the second observation logical formula” (abstract “
PNG
media_image4.png
352
1090
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”).
Regarding claim 5, Paul teaches “wherein the rules are logical formulas in which one or more second literals that expresses a numerical relationship and are generated based on first literals included in one or more first rules that are prepared in advance is added to the one or more first rule” (pg. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
440
916
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the rule is prepared in advance and the second literals are based on the first ones since they depend from the other)
Regarding claim 6, Paul teaches “wherein the cost of the second observation literals takes a value such that a result obtained by removing the second observation literals, from a result obtained by executing abduction in which the second observation literals is added to the first observation literals, is the same as one of a plurality of solution hypotheses having the same cost, in a result of executing abduction in which the second observation literals is not added” (pg. 27
PNG
media_image6.png
386
788
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the cost for the solution is determined based on how well it fits the problem or minimal cost)
Note that independent claims 1 and 7 recite the same substantial subject matter as independent claim 4, only differing in embodiments. The differences in embodiments, an apparatus with process/memory and non-transitory computer-readable medium are obvious variations of another and would be inherent to any computing system to carry out the steps. Therefore, the claims are subject to the same rejection.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 8-9 correspond to 5-6 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN W FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-4623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, MIRANDA HUANG can be reached at (571)270-7092. 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.
KEVIN W FIGUEROA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2124
/Kevin W Figueroa/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124