DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to submission of application on 03/06/2023.
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination. The preliminary amendment filed 03/06/2023 is being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-10 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 a method, which falls within the statutory category of a
process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites:
convert each of a plurality of pieces of information on a network into an inference rule of a given format (Abstract idea – mental process. Converting pieces of network information into inference rules can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by viewing network information on a display, mentally determining logical rules which describe the information, and writing out the rules on paper by hand. The courts have recognized that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
obtain an answer set satisfying both the inference rule of the given format and a preset inference rule through inference (Abstract idea – mental process. Obtaining an answer set satisfying inference rules through inference can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, for example, by viewing the inference rules on a sheet of paper and mentally identifying an answer set which satisfies the rules. The courts have recognized that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination. Specifically, the claim recites the additional elements:
A detection device, comprising: conversion circuitry and inference circuitry (This limitation is interpreted as a generic computing environment, and thus amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim recites the additional elements:
A detection device, comprising: conversion circuitry and inference circuitry (This limitation is interpreted as a generic computing environment, and thus amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claims 2-20:
Claim 2 recites The detection device according to claim 1, wherein: the conversion circuitry converts the information on the network to a predicate of answer set programming, and the inference circuitry derives a combination of predicates as a candidate for the answer set from the predicate obtained by the conversion circuitry according to a first inference rule. Converting network information to a predicate and deriving a combination of predicates as a candidate for the answer set according to an inference rule can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. mental process) – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Implementation using the detection device’s conversion circuitry and inference circuitry amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim merges with the abstract idea recited in claim 1, and does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites The detection device according to claim 2, wherein: the inference circuitry excludes a combination of predicates constrained according to a second inference rule from the candidate for the answer set derived according to the first inference rule. Excluding a combination of predicates from the answer set based on a constraining inference rule can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. mental process) – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Implementation using the detection device’s inference circuitry amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim merges with the abstract idea recited in claim 2, and does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites The detection device according to claim 1, wherein: the conversion circuitry converts at least one of information on an address existing as a node, information indicating an area on a network on which the address exists, and information in which an address is associated with a listening port to a logical equation. Converting information on address existence, address location, or address listening port to a logical equation can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. mental process) – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Implementation using the detection device’s conversion circuitry amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim merges with the abstract idea recited in claim 1, and does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 8-10 are method claims containing substantially the same elements as system claims 1-4, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claims 1-4, respectively, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 6 recites A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a detection program for causing a computer to function as the detection device according to claim 1. This claim is interpreted as implementation of the disclosed functions in a generic computing environment, and thus amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a detection program for causing a computer to perform the method of Claim 5. This claim is interpreted as implementation of the disclosed method in a generic computing environment, and thus amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Balduccini et al. (hereinafter Balduccini-2019), U.S. Patent Application Publication US-20190073426-A1 in view of
Balduccini (hereinafter Balduccini-2012), U.S. Patent Application Publication US-20120050787-A1 and
Güven et al. (hereinafter Güven), “Applying Answer Set Programming for Knowledge-Based Link Prediction on Social Interaction Networks”.
Regarding Claim 1,
Balduccini-2019 teaches [conversion circuitry] configured to convert each of a plurality of pieces of information [on a network] into an inference rule of a given format; and (0037: “The first step involves extracting mentions of actions from a natural language source. After collecting the actions, they are placed in a chronologically ordered list. Finally, we translate each action into a corresponding logical statement describing the occurrence of the event at its specific step.” 0044: “Our system first converts the predicate tuples into corresponding ASP form action (subject) or action (actor, target), and writes the ASP predicates into the problem instance.” Mentions of actions in a natural language source (i.e. a plurality of pieces of information) are converted to ASP [answer set programming] predicates (i.e. inference rules of a given format).)
[inference circuitry] configured to obtain an answer set satisfying both the inference rule of the given format and a preset inference rule through inference. (0048: “In our approach, the problem instance contains the ASP rules corresponding to action mentions and the problem encoding contains ASP rules corresponding to domain knowledge and common sense. Inference is applied to the ASP program in order to determine how the effects of the actions are propagated. The product of the reasoning process is a collection of facts about each step in the evolution of the domain. This information identifies one or more possible paths of the domain's transition diagram. More precisely, each answer set of the program represents a distinct path. The task of finding the corresponding paths in the transition diagram involves invoking an ASP solver, such as clingo4, to find the answer sets of the logic program.” An answer set is obtained by the ASP solver through inference which satisfies the ASP rules corresponding to action mentions (i.e. the inference rule of the given format) and ASP rules corresponding to domain knowledge and common sense (i.e. a present inference rule).)
Balduccini-2019 implies but does not appear to explicitly disclose A detection device, comprising: conversion circuitry and inference circuitry for performing the disclosed functions, nor does Balduccini-2019 explicitly disclose that the converted information is information on a network.
However, Balduccini-2012 teaches A detection device, comprising: conversion circuitry and inference circuitry for performing the disclosed functions. (Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted as implementation of the disclosed functions in a generic computing environment. 0038: “The method is generally implemented using a data processor, such as the data processing system 110 of FIG. 1.” 0031: “The data processing system 110 includes one or more data processing devices that implement the processes of the various embodiments of the present invention. The phrases ‘data processing device’ or ‘data processor’ are intended to include any data processing device, such as a central processing unit (‘CPU’), a desktop computer…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Balduccini-2019 and Balduccini-2012. Balduccini-2019 teaches information retrieval using answer set programming (ASP), including converting source information to ASP rules. Balduccini-2012 teaches a data processing system for performing answer set programming with a historical decision database storing an indication of previously successful decisions. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Balduccini-2019 and Balduccini-2012 because in order to “curb[ ] the performance degradations associated with the instability of the ASP solver 220 by using an historical decision database 400” (Balduccini-2012, 0058).
Güven teaches performing answer set programming on information on a network (Pg. 4, section 4.1: “The ASP program is composed of two parts: The facts describing the networks, and the rules for inferring the prediction.” Facts describing the networks are ASP formatted inference rules representing information on a network.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Balduccini-2019, Balduccini-2012, and Güven. Balduccini-2019 teaches information retrieval using answer set programming (ASP), including converting source information to ASP rules. Balduccini-2012 teaches a data processing system for performing answer set programming with a historical decision database storing an indication of previously successful decisions. Güven teaches using answer set programming to perform link prediction in networks. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Balduccini-2019, Balduccini-2012, and Güven because Güven “specifically demonstrated how to improve link prediction with contextual domain knowledge modeled using ASP – as a ‘proof of concept’ of its applicability for link prediction. Furthermore, [the authors] demonstrated its advantages like explainability and enabling a simple formalization and refinement of domain knowledge” (Güven, pg. 7, section 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Balduccini-2019, Balduccini-2012, and Güven teach The detection device according to claim 1, as shown above.
Balduccini-2019 also teaches wherein:
the conversion circuitry converts the information on the network to a predicate of answer set programming, and (0044: “Our system first converts the predicate tuples into corresponding ASP form action (subject) or action (actor, target), and writes the ASP predicates into the problem instance.” Mentions of actions in the natural language source (i.e. information on the network) are converted to ASP [answer set programming] predicates.)
the inference circuitry derives a combination of predicates as a candidate for the answer set from the predicate obtained by the conversion circuitry according to a first inference rule. (0048: “In our approach, the problem instance contains the ASP rules corresponding to action mentions and the problem encoding contains ASP rules corresponding to domain knowledge and common sense. Inference is applied to the ASP program in order to determine how the effects of the actions are propagated. The product of the reasoning process is a collection of facts about each step in the evolution of the domain. This information identifies one or more possible paths of the domain's transition diagram. More precisely, each answer set of the program represents a distinct path. The task of finding the corresponding paths in the transition diagram involves invoking an ASP solver, such as clingo4, to find the answer sets of the logic program.” The ASP reasoning process produces a collection of facts (i.e. a combination of predicates) as a candidate answer set based on the ASP rules corresponding to actions (i.e. the predicate obtained by the conversion circuitry) and the ASP rules corresponding to domain knowledge and common sense (i.e. a first inference rule).)
Regarding Claim 3, Balduccini-2019, Balduccini-2012, and Güven teach The detection device according to claim 2, as shown above.
Balduccini-2019 also teaches wherein:
the inference circuitry excludes a combination of predicates constrained according to a second inference rule from the candidate for the answer set derived according to the first inference rule. (0082: “Rules of the form
⊥
←
l
1
,
.
.
.
,
l
n
are abbreviated
←
l
1
,
.
.
.
,
n
o
t
l
n
, and called constraints, intuitively meaning that
{
l
1
,
.
.
.
,
n
o
t
l
n
}
must not be satisfied.” A constraint (i.e. second inference rule) requires that a combination of predicates
{
l
1
,
.
.
.
,
n
o
t
l
n
}
is not satisfied (i.e. the combination of predicates is excluded) in the answer set, which is derived according to the ASP rules corresponding to domain knowledge and common sense (i.e. the first inference rule), as explained above in reference to claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 4, Balduccini-2019, Balduccini-2012, and Güven teach The detection device according to claim 1, as shown above.
Güven also teaches wherein:
the conversion circuitry converts at least one of information on an address existing as a node, information indicating an area on a network on which the address exists, and information in which an address is associated with a listening port to a logical equation. (Pg. 4, section 4.1: “The ASP program is composed of two parts: The facts describing the networks, and the rules for inferring the prediction…
%
A
S
P
f
a
c
t
s
%
D
e
f
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
/
g
r
a
p
h
s
n
o
d
e
(
1
.
.
6
)
.
%
N
o
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
g
r
a
p
h
…”
The ASP facts describing the network (i.e. the converted inference rules describing the information on the network) include
n
o
d
e
(
1
.
.
6
)
, which encodes the existence of nodes with addresses 1-6 on the network (i.e. information on an address existing as a node) as a logical equation.)
Claims 5 and 8-10 are method claims containing substantially the same elements as system claims 1-4, respectively. Balduccini-2019, Balduccini-2012, and Güven teach the elements of claims 1-4, as shown above.
Regarding Claim 6, Balduccini-2019, Balduccini-2012, and Güven teach the detection device according to claim 1, as shown above.
Balduccini-2012 also teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a detection program for causing a computer to function as the detection device according to claim 1. (0078: “A computer program product can include one or more storage medium, for example; magnetic storage media such as magnetic disk (such as a floppy disk) or magnetic tape; optical storage media such as optical disk, optical tape, or machine readable bar code; solid-state electronic storage devices such as random access memory (RAM), or read-only memory (ROM); or any other physical device or media employed to store a computer program having instructions for controlling one or more computers to practice the method according to the present invention.”)
Claim 7 is a method claim containing substantially the same elements as system claim 6. Balduccini-2019, Balduccini-2012, and Güven teach the elements of claim 6, as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M ROHD whose telephone number is (571)272-6445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00-6:00 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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at (571) 270-5871. 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.
/B.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/ERIC NILSSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151