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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on September 29, 2025, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are geared towards newly amended claims with newly added limitations. The newly add limitations and the newly amended claims are considered for the first time in the rejection below. Additionally, Applicant’s newly amended claims and newly added limitations necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-18 are directed to a system (i.e. machine), claim 19 is directed to a method (i.e., process), and claim 20 is directed to a program (running a on a computer) (i.e. product or article of manufacture). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 19, 20) and dependent claims (2-18) recite obtaining information/data (where the information itself is non-technical and abstract in nature (e.g. business/financial/finance information)), data/information analysis and manipulation (e.g. comparing information, using mathematical concepts (graphs, calculations, degree/strength/etc., determinations etc.,), etc.,) to determine more abstract information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. These claims are directed towards gathering/collecting data, using the data for analysis, and manipulating/refining/etc., the data to generate more data; and further geared towards mathematical relationships (as discussed in the claims and the specification). The limitations of independent claims (1, 19, 20) and dependent claims (2-18), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including concepts in various business industries with example in financial industry to financial trading/transactions); commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)) and mathematical concepts (graphs, maps, value determinations for (e.g. determining strength, degrees, models)). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, processing devices, circuitry, task executors (generic/general-purpose labeled software with no technical details provided), transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, control displays, encoders, decoders, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18); processors, etc., (in independent claim 19); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, processing device, etc., (in independent claim 20) (which are generic/general-purpose computer/computing components/elements) in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea. As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., (processing devices, circuitry, task executors (generic/general-purpose labeled software with no technical details provided), transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, control displays, encoders, decoders, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18); processors, etc., (in independent claim 19); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, processing device, etc., (in independent claim 20)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing elements/components/devices (for example, processing devices, circuitry, task executors (generic/general-purpose labeled software with no technical details provided), transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, control displays, encoders, decoders, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18); processors, etc., (in independent claim 19); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, processing device, etc., (in independent claim 20)) terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc., (for example, processing devices, circuitry, task executors (generic/general-purpose labeled software with no technical details provided), transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, control displays, encoders, decoders, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18); processors, etc., (in independent claim 19); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, processing device, etc., (in independent claim 20)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers, computing elements/devices/components/etc., and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., and software (for example, processing devices, circuitry, task executors (generic/general-purpose labeled software with no technical details provided), transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, control displays, encoders, decoders, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18); processors, etc., (in independent claim 19); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, processing device, etc., (in independent claim 20)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, Fig. 23, 4, ¶¶ 0242-0254 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-18) further define the independent claim 1 and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data/information analysis and manipulation (e.g. comparing information, using mathematical concepts (graphs, calculations, degree/strength/etc., determinations etc.,), etc.,) to determine more abstract information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (model and analysis are mathematical in nature). These claims are directed towards organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including concepts in various business industries with example in financial industry to financial trading/transactions); commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)) and mathematical concepts (graphs, maps, value determinations for (e.g. determining strength, degrees, models)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic components (for example, processing devices, circuitry, task executors (generic/general-purpose labeled software with no technical details provided), transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, control displays, encoders, decoders, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18); processors, etc., (in independent claim 19); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, processing device, etc., (in independent claim 20)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc., (for example, processing devices, circuitry, task executors (generic/general-purpose labeled software with no technical details provided), transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, control displays, encoders, decoders, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18); processors, etc., (in independent claim 19); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, processing device, etc., (in independent claim 20))). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See details in rejection above.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chetlur et al., (US 2017/0109682) in view of Sabet et al., (US 2016/0260044), further in view of Nassif et al., (US 2012/0310857).
As per claim 1, Chetlur discloses an information processing device comprising:
circuitry (Fig. 5 [shows the “circuitry”]; see with 0018, 0032-0039 [describing the “circuitry” with fig. 5]) configured to analyze a tendency of a preference related to an action by each task executor of a plurality of task executors based on a basis of action result data indicating a result of the action regarding a predetermined task (¶¶ 0006 [task data points from a plurality of…sources…assessing…task data points, thereupon identifying…based on a determined…trend…based on…measure…requirements of…role], 0019-0021 [skills or traits requirements for work setting and task needs (preferences for actions/skills); adaptability and proficiency…employee’s ability…dependability…skill parameter…monitors activities]; see also 0023-0025),
and generate a similarity map representing a similarity between the actions by each task executor of plurality of task executors including an analysis target person on a dimensional based on the action result data, wherein the similarity map represents strength of a preference related to each type of the action selected in a heat map form in the similarity map ((note that a dimensional plane as claimed by the Applicant is a graph representation on 2-axis – as heat map is a graph in essence) ¶¶ 0006 [identifying similarities], 0021-0022 [multiple dimensions…indices…various dimensions], 0023, 0024-0026 [activities/actions…similarity measure…relatedness…task and style (context)…employee……heat map (activities performed)…graph]) and
Chetlur discloses generating a similarity map by using information (shown above) of the similarity map with respect to each type of action (see citations above). However, Chetlur does not explicitly state using feedback regarding accuracy.
Analogous art Sabet discloses using feedback regarding accuracy (¶¶ 0134 [feedback…dashboards…analysis…overall relevance and accuracy]; see also 0121 [feedback…accuracy], 0150, 0242).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur using feedback regarding accuracy as taught by analogous art Sabet in order to more efficient/accurate analytics metrics and for optimal utilization and decision-making since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR-A). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Chetlur does not explicitly state 2-dimensional (although Chetlur does state muti-dimensional and the graphs/maps are also shown to be 2-dimensional).
Analogous art Nassif discusses measuring similarity in a graph setting and discloses data projected in 2D (for example, see ¶ 0042-0043 [discusses data projected in 2D]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur 2D (2-dimensional) projections of data/information as taught by analogous art Nassif in order to optimally present information for efficient/accurate utilization and decision-making since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Nassif (2-D data representations on a graph/chart/heatmap is old and well-known) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D); and also since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR-A). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 19, claim 19 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1.
As per claim 20, claim 20 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1.
As per claim 2, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to represent a change in the action in time series by each of a plurality of the task executors in the similarity map (see citations above for claim 1 and also see ¶¶ 0023-0026 [period of time…during a given time (of a given day, etc.,)…heat map…log…timeline]).
As per claim 3, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the similarity map representing a similarity between at least the action by the analysis target person and the action by a designated comparison target person on a two-dimensional plane, and represents strength of a preference of the analysis target person and strength of a preference of the comparison target person according to the type of the action selected in the heat map form in the similarity map (¶¶ 0006 [similarity measure…matching…requirements], 0021-0023 [assessing…adaptability…proficiency…start parameter…end parameter…value…range…strategy style (employee)…amount of detail (employee work)…amount of projected thought (employee shows)…[activities]…level of adaptability and reliability…task designation [range between 0 and 1]], 0025-0026 [heat map…intensity…amount of activity…intensity…scorings…weightage (percentage) assigned…task dependency graph… number of nodes and depth of the subtree …influence…the score…higher or lesser score…weightage (higher/lesser)]).
As per claim 4, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured to select a type of the action having a large difference in strength of preferences between the analysis target person and the comparison target person, and represents the strength of the preference related to the type of the action selected in the heat map form in the similarity map (¶¶ 0006 [similarity measure…matching…requirements], 0021-0023 [assessing…adaptability…proficiency…start parameter…end parameter…value…range…strategy style (employee)…amount of detail (employee work)…amount of projected thought (employee shows)…[activities]…level of adaptability and reliability…task designation [range between 0 and 1]], 0025-0026 [heat map…intensity…amount of activity…intensity…scorings…weightage (percentage) assigned…task dependency graph… number of nodes and depth of the subtree …influence…the score…higher or lesser score…weightage (higher/lesser)]).
As per claim 5, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry presents a plurality of types of the action having a large difference in strength of preferences between the analysis target person and the comparison target person to a user, and represents the strength of the preference related to the type of the action selected by the user in the heat map form in the similarity map (¶¶ 0006 [similarity measure…matching…requirements], 0021-0023 [assessing…adaptability…proficiency…start parameter…end parameter…value…range…strategy style (employee)…amount of detail (employee work)…amount of projected thought (employee shows)…[activities]…level of adaptability and reliability…task designation [range between 0 and 1]], 0025-0026 [heat map…intensity…amount of activity…intensity…scorings…weightage (percentage) assigned…task dependency graph… number of nodes and depth of the subtree …influence…the score…higher or lesser score…weightage (higher/lesser)]).
As per claim 6, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry selects a type of the action having a large difference in strength of preferences between the analysis target person and the comparison target person on based on a degree of contribution of each element included in the action result data to the generation of the similarity map (¶¶ 0006 [similarity measure…matching…requirements], 0019 [various employees comparisons – see with 0021-0023 [assessing…adaptability…proficiency…start parameter…end parameter…value…range…strategy style (employee)…amount of detail (employee work)…amount of projected thought (employee shows)…[activities]…level of adaptability and reliability…task designation [range between 0 and 1]]], 0025-0026 [heat map…intensity…amount of activity…intensity…scorings…weightage (percentage) assigned…task dependency graph… number of nodes and depth of the subtree …influence…the score…higher or lesser score…weightage (higher/lesser)]).
As per claim 7, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry presents the degree of contribution to a user (see citations above and also see, for example, ¶¶ 0021 [discusses various degrees of contribution for different elements], 0023 [style of work…extended period of time…adaptability and reliability (measures)], 0025-0026, 0028).
As per claim 8, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry represents strength of the preference related to a type of the action corresponding to an element included in the action result data selected by the user based on the degree of contribution to be presented in the heat map form in the similarity map (¶¶ 0006 [similarity measure…matching…requirements], 0021-0023 [assessing…adaptability…proficiency…start parameter…end parameter…value…range…strategy style (employee)…amount of detail (employee work)…amount of projected thought (employee shows)…[activities]…level of adaptability and reliability…task designation [range between 0 and 1]], 0025-0026 [heat map…intensity…amount of activity…intensity…scorings…weightage (percentage) assigned…task dependency graph… number of nodes and depth of the subtree …influence…the score…higher or lesser score…weightage (higher/lesser)]; also note 0021 [discusses various degrees of contribution for different elements], 0023 [style of work…extended period of time…adaptability and reliability (measures)], 0025-0026, 0028).
As per claim 18, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according wherein the circuitry is to claim 1, further configured to control a display to display the similarity map (see citations above for claims 1-3 and also see, for example, ¶¶ 0025 [heat map…displays], 0029 [displayed…on a screen], 0039 [discusses display unit]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chetlur et al., (US 2017/0109682) in view of Sabet et al., (US 2016/0260044), further in view of Nassif et al., (US 2012/0310857), further in view of Song et al., (US 2021/0192358).
As per claim 9, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the similarity map by inputting the action result data (see citations above for claim 1-3 and also see, for example, ¶¶ 0021-0025). However, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly state a learned encoder (which is a machine learning model and data is added was training).
Analogous art Song discloses learned encoder (which is a machine learning model and data is added was training) (Abstract [an encoder graph neural network subsystem to process the agent data as graph data to provide encoded graph data, a recurrent graph neural network subsystem to process the encoded graph data to provide processed graph data, a decoder graph neural network subsystem to decode the processed graph data to provide decoded graph data and an output to provide representation data for node and/or edge attributes of the decoded graph data relating to a predicted action of one or more of the agents. A reinforcement learning system includes the RFM system]; ¶¶ 0006 [a recurrent neural network to process the encoded graph data and provide processed graph data comprising an updated version of the node attributes and edge attributes of the encoded graph data. The one or more processors may further be configured to implement a decoder graph neural network subsystem to decode the processed graph data and provide decoded graph data comprising an updated version of the node attributes and edge attributes of the processed graph data. The system may have a system output to provide representation data comprising a representation of one or both of the node attributes and edge attributes of the decoded graph data for one or more, for example all of the agents. The representation may relate to a predicted or explained action of one or more of the agents e.g. derived respectively from the node attributes or edge attributes of the decoded graph data], 0014-0016 [encoder…decoder graph neural network subsystems…reinforcement learning system (see also with 0018-0019)]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif learned encoder (which is a machine learning model and data is added was training) as taught by analogous art Song in order to optimally process information for efficient/accurate utilization and decision-making since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Song (using machine-learning techniques) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 10, Chetlur discloses the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry represents the strength of the preference related to the type of the action in the heat map form in the similarity map based on output data obtained by inputting a latent variable at an arbitrary point on the similarity map (¶¶ 0006 [similarity measure…matching…requirements], 0018-0023 [(outputs as also shown in figs. 1-4)…assessing…adaptability…proficiency…start parameter…end parameter…value…range…strategy style (employee)…amount of detail (employee work)…amount of projected thought (employee shows)…[activities]…level of adaptability and reliability…task designation [range between 0 and 1]], 0025-0026 [heat map…scenario…displays…intensity…amount of activity…intensity…scorings…weightage (percentage) assigned…task dependency graph… number of nodes and depth of the subtree …influence…the score…higher or lesser score…weightage (higher/lesser)]; also note 0021 [discusses various degrees of contribution for different elements], 0023 [style of work…extended period of time…adaptability and reliability (measures)], 0025-0026, 0028).
However, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly state a learned decoder (which is a machine learning technique).
Analogous art Song discloses learned decoder (which is a machine learning technique) (Abstract [a decoder graph neural network subsystem to decode the processed graph data to provide decoded graph data and an output to provide representation data for node and/or edge attributes of the decoded graph data relating to a predicted action of one or more of the agents. A reinforcement learning system includes the RFM system]; ¶¶ 0006 [a recurrent neural network to process the encoded graph data and provide processed graph data comprising an updated version of the node attributes and edge attributes of the encoded graph data. The one or more processors may further be configured to implement a decoder graph neural network subsystem to decode the processed graph data and provide decoded graph data comprising an updated version of the node attributes and edge attributes of the processed graph data. The system may have a system output to provide representation data comprising a representation of one or both of the node attributes and edge attributes of the decoded graph data for one or more, for example all of the agents. The representation may relate to a predicted or explained action of one or more of the agents e.g. derived respectively from the node attributes or edge attributes of the decoded graph data], 0014-0016 [encoder…decoder graph neural network subsystems…reinforcement learning system (see also with 0018-0019)]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif learned decoder (which is a machine learning technique) as taught by analogous art Song in order to optimally process information for efficient/accurate utilization and decision-making since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Song (using machine-learning techniques) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 11, Chetlur in view of Nassif discloses the information processing device according to claim 10, however, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly state wherein the encoder and the decoder are generated by learning related to a variational auto-encoder.
Analogous art Song discloses encoder and the decoder are generated by learning related to a variational auto-encoder (Abstract [an encoder graph neural network subsystem to process the agent data as graph data to provide encoded graph data, a recurrent graph neural network subsystem to process the encoded graph data to provide processed graph data, a decoder graph neural network subsystem to decode the processed graph data to provide decoded graph data and an output to provide representation data for node and/or edge attributes of the decoded graph data relating to a predicted action of one or more of the agents. A reinforcement learning system includes the RFM system]; ¶¶ 0006 [a recurrent neural network to process the encoded graph data and provide processed graph data comprising an updated version of the node attributes and edge attributes of the encoded graph data. The one or more processors may further be configured to implement a decoder graph neural network subsystem to decode the processed graph data and provide decoded graph data comprising an updated version of the node attributes and edge attributes of the processed graph data. The system may have a system output to provide representation data comprising a representation of one or both of the node attributes and edge attributes of the decoded graph data for one or more, for example all of the agents. The representation may relate to a predicted or explained action of one or more of the agents e.g. derived respectively from the node attributes or edge attributes of the decoded graph data], 0014-0016 [encoder…decoder graph neural network subsystems…reinforcement learning system (see also with 0018-0019)]; see also 0051-0056).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif encoder and the decoder are generated by learning related to a variational auto-encoder as taught by analogous art Song in order to optimally process information for efficient/accurate utilization and decision-making since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Song (using machine-learning techniques – encoder and the decoder are generated by learning related to a variational auto-encoder) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chetlur et al., (US 2017/0109682) in view of Sabet et al., (US 2016/0260044), further in view of Nassif et al., (US 2012/0310857), further in view of Aber et al., (US 11,138,667).
As per claim 12, Chetlur in view of Nassif discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly state wherein the predetermined task includes asset management.
Analogous art Aber discloses wherein the predetermined task includes asset management (¶¶ col. 1, lines 15-25 [discusses assets being managed]; col. 4, line 41 – col. 5 line 17 [shows managing assets]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif wherein the predetermined task includes asset management as taught by analogous art Aber since each individual element and its function (similarity analysis and efficient information analysis to make optimal decisions) are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of specific asset management of Aber for the general other information management of Chetlur or Nassif (KSR-B); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Aber (of financial industry) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 13, Chetlur in view of Nassif discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly show claim 12 and do not explicitly state wherein the action includes a trading transaction of a financial product.
Analogous art Aber discloses wherein the action includes a trading transaction of a financial product (¶¶ col. 1, lines 15-25 [financial transaction…stock, bond]; col. 4, line 41 – col. 5 line 17 [financial…trading]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif wherein the action includes a trading transaction of a financial product as taught by analogous art Aber since each individual element and its function (similarity analysis and efficient information analysis to make optimal decisions) are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of trading transaction of a financial product of Aber for the general other information management of Chetlur or Nassif (KSR-B); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Aber (of financial industry) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 14, Chetlur in view of Nassif discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly show claim 13 and do not explicitly state wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product of a predetermined stock.
Analogous art Aber discloses wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product of a predetermined stock (¶¶ col. 1, lines 15-25 [financial transaction…stock, bond]; col. 4, lines 41-53 [assets…financial…stocks]; col. 10, lines 27-55; col. 14, line 25 – col. 15, line 47).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product of a predetermined stock as taught by analogous art Aber since each individual element and its function (similarity analysis and efficient information analysis to make optimal decisions) are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of owning of the financial product of a predetermined stock of Aber for the general other information management of Chetlur or Nassif (KSR-B); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Aber (of financial industry) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 15, Chetlur in view of Nassif discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly show claim 13 and do not explicitly state wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product corresponding to a predetermined industry type.
Analogous art Aber discloses wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product corresponding to a predetermined industry type (¶¶ col. 1, lines 15-25 [financial transaction…stock, bond, commodity, etc.,]; col. 4, lines 41-53 [assets…financial…stocks, bond, commodity]; col. 10, lines 27-55; col. 14, line 25 – col. 15, line 47).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product corresponding to a predetermined industry type as taught by analogous art Aber since each individual element and its function (similarity analysis and efficient information analysis to make optimal decisions) are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of financial product corresponding to a predetermined industry type of Aber for the general other information management of Chetlur or Nassif (KSR-B); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Aber (of financial industry) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 16, Chetlur in view of Nassif discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly show claim 13 and do not explicitly state wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product corresponding to a predetermined factor.
Analogous art Aber discloses wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product corresponding to a predetermined factor (¶¶ col. 10, line 28 – col. 11, line 39 [factors/values discussed – see with col. 4, lines 41-53 [assets…financial…stocks] and col. 10, lines 27-55]; col. 14, line 25 – col. 15, line 47).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif wherein the type of the action includes owning of the financial product corresponding to a predetermined factor as taught by analogous art Aber since each individual element and its function (similarity analysis and efficient information analysis to make optimal decisions) are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of type of the action includes owning of the financial product corresponding to a predetermined factor of Aber for the general other information management of Chetlur or Nassif (KSR-B); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Aber (of financial industry) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 17, Chetlur in view of Nassif discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the action result data includes weight information (see citations above for claims 1-4 and also see, for example, ¶¶ 0025-0026 [weightage…assigned to activities/information/etc.,]). However, neither Chetlur nor Nassif explicitly show claim 13 and do not explicitly state wherein the action result data includes weight information related to a financial product.
Analogous art Aber discloses wherein the action result data includes weight information related to a financial product (see citations above for claims 12-16 and also see ¶¶ col. 10, line 28 – col. 11, line 39 [factors/values discussed – see with col. 19, lines 35-53 [percentages./weighted allocations]]; col. 17, lines [prediction…level…confidence…weighted]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Chetlur in view of Nassif related to a financial product as taught by analogous art Aber since each individual element and its function (similarity analysis and efficient information analysis to make optimal decisions) are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of related to a financial product of Aber for the general other item/scenario information processing/management of Chetlur or Nassif (KSR-B); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and/or concepts of Aber (of financial industry) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Al-Otaibi et al., (US 20060184484): Discusses human resources planning and development are provided. An embodiment of a system includes a first computer defining a server adapted to be in communication with a communication network and having a human resource database associated therewith, a plurality of client computers each adapted to interface with a user and a communication network remote from the server, and a computer medium associated with the server and having program code responsive to preselected manning assumptions to process human resource information from the human resource database for predicting a future number of employees desired within the organization for a preselected period of time to thereby define a human resource manning plan, program code responsive to preselected employment development assumptions to process the human resource information for assigning a plurality of employment development activities to each of a plurality of participating employees in the organization to thereby define an employment development plan for each participating employee, and program code responsive to information generated by the employment development plan to revise the human resources manning plan and responsive to revisions in the human resources manning plan to revise the employment development plan.
Buhrmann et al., (US 20160232160): Illustrates determining the semantic relatedness and meaning between at least two natural language sources is described in a prescribed context. Portions of natural languages are vectorized and mathematically processed to express relatedness as a calculated metric. The metric is associable to the natural language sources to graphically present the level of relatedness between at least two natural language sources. The metric may be re-determined with algorithms designed to compare the natural language sources with a knowledge data bank so the calculated metric can be ascertained with a higher level of certainty.
Anand et al., (US 20120035987): Provides for managing and evaluating the performance of an employee in an organization are described herein. In one implementation, the method includes receiving a query to initiate a performance management process and providing at least one performance measures based on the query received. Further, a rating is received for at least one performance measures. The performance measures are analyzed based on a rating received for the at least one performance measures to generate an assessment score. The assessment score indicates the performance of the employee in an organization.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625