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.
Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
execute 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 (abduction 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;
select, by evaluating each of the solution hypotheses based on an evaluation criterion, a solution hypothesis according to evaluation results (hypotheses selection and evaluation 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 the following additional elements:
An inference apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
outputting a plurality of solution hypotheses whose costs are the same (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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.
An inference apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
outputting a plurality of solution hypotheses whose costs are the same (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
[Claim 2] (Currently Amended) The inference apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to, evaluate each of the solution hypotheses using an evaluation function expressing a numerical relationship (hypotheses evaluation using function 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 selects select a solution hypothesis for which the evaluation result matches a preset condition (hypotheses selection and evaluation 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.
Claim 3: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
[Claim 3] (Currently Amended) The inference apparatus according to claim 2, wherein one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to, evaluate terms of observation literals related to a same hypothesis literal using the evaluation function (hypotheses evaluation using function 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 select a solution hypothesis that matches the condition (hypotheses selection and evaluation 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 4-6 are method claims having similar limitation as of claim 1-3 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7-9 are non-transitory computer recording medium claims having similar limitation as claims 1-3 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claims 7-9 are 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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ovchinnikova et al (“Abductive Reasoning with a Large Knowledge Base for Discourse Processing” 2011 Ekaterina Ovchinnikova, Niloofar Montazeri, Theodore Alexandrov, Jerry Hobbs, Michael C. McCord, and Rutu Mulkar-Mehta. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011)).
[Claim 1] (Currently Amended) An inference apparatus comprising (See abstract on TACITUS system. Examiner Note: a computing system inherently has memory and processor):
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
execute 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 section 1 on abductive reasoning using logical inference and arriving at an explanatory hypothesis given an observation. See section 2 on logical form), and
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
outputting a plurality of solution hypotheses whose costs are the same (See pg. 227); and
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
select, by evaluating each of the solution hypotheses based on an evaluation criterion, a solution hypothesis according to evaluation results (See pg. 227, the one with fewer axiom is considered to be better/selected).
[Claim 2] (Currently Amended) The inference apparatus according to claim 1, wherein one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to, evaluate each of the solution hypotheses using an evaluation function expressing a numerical relationship, and select a solution hypothesis for which the evaluation result matches a preset condition.
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5, 7-8 are method and media claims having similar limitation as of claim 1-2 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovchinnikova et al (“Abductive Reasoning with a Large Knowledge Base for Discourse Processing” 2011 In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011)) in view of YAMAMOTO (US 20200118013 A1)
Claim 3: While Ovchinnikova disclose observations, Ovchinnikova fails to explicitly disclose observation literals
However, YAMAMOTO disclose abductive inference (thereby in the same field of endeavor), and further disclose observation literals ([0003] Non-Patent Document 1 discloses an example of an abductive inference method using a calculator. In Non-Patent Document 1, an abductive inference is made using candidate hypothesis generation means and candidate hypothesis evaluation means. Specifically, candidate hypothesis generation means generate a set of candidate hypotheses using, as inputs, an observation and a knowledge base (Background knowledge). An observation is a conjunction of first-ordered literals. By evaluating the probability of each candidate hypothesis, the candidate hypothesis evaluation means selects, from the set of generated candidate hypotheses, a candidate hypothesis that can explain the observation without excess or deficiency, that is, the best candidate hypothesis (the best hypothesis, solution hypothesis), as an explanation of the observation, and outputs the selected best candidate hypothesis.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abductive inference of Ovchinnikova to incorporate abductive inference of YAMAMOTO
Given the fact that An observation is a conjunction of first-ordered literals, a well known knowledge, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification with predictable result of the inference apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the selection means evaluates one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to, evaluate terms of observation literals related to a same hypothesis literal using the evaluation function, and select a solution hypothesis that matches the condition.
Claims 6, 9 are method and media claims having similar limitation as of claim 3 and are rejected under the same rationale.
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
Prosecution Insights