DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-208217, filed on 12/22/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2022 and 4/13/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1,
The claim recites the following limitation(s):
deciding on one or more variables, from among a plurality of variables, to be a target for a question regarding degree of importance, the order of priority of the variables being determined based on a plurality of patterns indicating ranking of the plurality of variables, the estimated amount indicating possibility of a match with predetermined condition regarding each of the patterns; Which describes a process involving determining a variable to be a subject of a question based on an ordering or ranking of a set of variables. Process of deciding is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine an order of importance for a plurality of variables relating to a particular topic such as attributes of a business. A customer satisfaction survey may value attributes relating to the user experience, which would represent an ordering or ranking of some variables over others. A person may mentally determine which variable is most important given a ranked list of variables.
Therefore, the limitation above represents the abstract idea of a mental process.
The limitations, as drafted, comprise a process that, under its broadest, reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components e.g. a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, an information processing program, a computer, , etc. None of the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Therefore, these steps recite a mental process applied to the field of computer techniques
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
updating the estimated amount based on an answer result of the question about the decided variable. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. the updated estimated amount represents data being gathered), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions applied to a generic computer environment. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
updating the estimated amount based on an answer result of the question about the decided variable. which represents an element that is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of electronic recordkeeping (e.g. updating a stored value is a step of electronic recordkeeping) as described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2,
Claim 2 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 2 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 2 further recites the following limitation(s):
wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is important, updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. the updated estimated amount represents data being gathered), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions applied to a generic computer environment. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is important, updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value. Anaya et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0129597; Pub. Date: May 10, 2018) discloses the limitation at issue: See Paragraph [0046], (Users may enter feedback that modifies the relevance metric for a variable, allowing for the relevance metric of a variable to be updated and subsequently displayed based on the relevance threshold, i.e. wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is important (e.g. user feedback may indicate a need to increase the relevance of a variable), updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value (e.g. relevance may be increased to be greater than or equal to a threshold that allows the variable to be displayed).)
Regarding dependent claim 3,
Claim 3 depends upon Claim 2, as such claim 3 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 3 further recites the following limitation(s):
wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is not important, updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is not equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. the updated estimated amount represents data being gathered), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions applied to a generic computer environment. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is not important, updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is not equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value. Anaya et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0129597; Pub. Date: May 10, 2018) discloses the limitation at issue: See Paragraph [0046], (Users may enter feedback that modifies the relevance metric for a variable, allowing for the relevance metric of a variable to be updated and subsequently displayed based on the relevance threshold. User feedback may indicate that a variable is not as relevant as the view or relevance for the variable indicates. This prompts the editor integration module 412 to send a new relevance value for the variable to update the relevance metric, i.e. wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is not important, updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is not equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value.)
Regarding dependent claim 4,
Claim 4 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 4 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 4 further recites the following limitation(s):
wherein the deciding on the variables includes deciding on the variables, based on the order of priority based on the patterns indicating the ranking decided according to statistic representing at least one of correlation, mutual information content, and chi-square value for the variables, and the estimated amount. Which further describes the process of making a decision, which was indicated as representing an abstract idea as in claim 1 above. Claim 4 further describes statistics or metrics involved in the decision-making process such as a correlation, mutual information content, etc. which merely describes types of data used to decide. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to decide relating to a variable of interest given correlation information, etc.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 5,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 6,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 7,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 3 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 8,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding independent claim 9,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 10,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 11,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 3 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 12,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding independent claim 1,
Claim 1 recites " A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising: deciding on one or more variables,…”. The body of the claim does not define any specific hardware (i.e. a processor coupled to a memory, wherein the memory stores the modules) to execute the recited process. The claim lacks the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. Therefore, the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is not limited to embodiments which include the hardware necessary to enable any underlying functionality to be realized, instead being software per se, and is therefore non-statutory.
The “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” of claim 1 is only described in Paragraph [0009] of Applicant’s specification as “stor[ing] an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process” which is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprises hardware and is not merely software or a transitory signal.
Claims 2-4 are dependent upon claim 1, respectively, do not add anything to correct the deficiency and therefore are likewise rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amos et al. (PGPUB No. CA 2703431 A1; Pub. Date: Nov. 11, 2011) in view of Anaya et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0129597; Pub. Date: May 10, 2018).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Amos discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising: deciding on one or more variables, from among a plurality of variables, to be a target for a question regarding degree of importance, See FIG. 1& Paragraph [0008], (Disclosing a method for generating a report based on survey results obtained from customers. FIG. 1 illustrates the method comprising step 102 of generating a survey comprising specific questions to customers to obtain feedback about a service. Generating a survey includes determining a weighted importance for a series of attributes on business outcomes such as satisfaction, recommendation and intent to return. Note the Abstract wherein each customer survey includes a plurality of attributes having at least one weighting factor, i.e. deciding on one or more variables, from among a plurality of variables, to be a target for a question regarding degree of importance (e.g. by generating a survey including a plurality of attributes), based on order of priority of the variables (e.g. the weighted importance determined for an attribute) and estimated amount (e.g. the value of the attribute presented in the survey ) ,
the order of priority of the variables being determined based on a plurality of patterns indicating ranking of the plurality of variables, See Paragraphs [0014]-[0015], (Customer satisfaction survey questions are selected and/or prioritized based on the weighted importance metric. Influence weights and business weights are assigned to each attribute which reflect the importance of a particular question as it relates to a specific business outcome, i.e. the order of priority of the variables being determined (e.g. the selection and/or prioritization reflects the ordering of attributes on the survey.) based on a plurality of patterns indicating ranking of the plurality of variables (e.g. influence and business weights add or remove relevance to a particular attribute depending on client business priorities wherein the client business priorities represent patterns reflecting an importance/relevance of an attribute).)
the estimated amount indicating possibility of a match with predetermined condition regarding each of the patterns; See FIG. 1, (FIG. 1 illustrates the method comprising step 102 of generating a survey includes determining a weighted importance for a series of attributes on business outcomes such as satisfaction, recommendation and intent to return, i.e. the estimated amount indicating possibility of a match with predetermined condition regarding each of the patterns (e.g. an attribute presented in the survey has associated weight values which indicate a relevance of an attribute to a business priorities of a client. A user may provide a response to the one or more attributes of the survey, wherein the system may then determine which responses to favor, see [0017]);
Amos does not disclose the step of updating the estimated amount based on an answer result of the question about the decided variable.
Anaya discloses the step of updating the estimated amount based on an answer result of the question about the decided variable. See Paragraph [0046], (Disclosing a test suite for testing a computer program for a plurality of variables. The system comprises an external editor which allows a user to filter displayed variables by setting a relevance threshold such that only variables having a relevance greater than or equal to a user-provided value may be displayed. Users may enter feedback that modifies the relevance metric for a variable, allowing for the relevance metric of a variable to be updated and subsequently displayed based on the relevance threshold, i.e. updating the estimated amount based on an answer result of the question about the decided variable (e.g. user feedback may indicate a need to increase the relevance of a variable).)
Amos and Anaya are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, dataset management. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Amos to include the method of updating a variable in response to a user feedback as disclosed by Anaya. Paragraph [0046] of Anaya discloses that the editor interface provides viewers with functionality for displaying only the most relevant variables based on a relevance threshold while also providing the user with functionality for updating the relevance of variables. This represents an improvement in the user experience as it allows a user to control the variables displayed at any given time.
Regarding dependent claim 2,
As discussed above with claim 1, Amos-Anaya discloses all of the limitations.
Anaya further discloses the step wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is important, updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value. See Paragraph [0046], (Users may enter feedback that modifies the relevance metric for a variable, allowing for the relevance metric of a variable to be updated and subsequently displayed based on the relevance threshold, i.e. wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is important (e.g. user feedback may indicate a need to increase the relevance of a variable), updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value (e.g. relevance may be increased to be greater than or equal to a threshold that allows the variable to be displayed).)
Regarding dependent claim 3,
As discussed above with claim 2, Amos-Anaya discloses all of the limitations.
Anaya further discloses the step wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is not important, updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is not equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value. See Paragraph [0046], (Users may enter feedback that modifies the relevance metric for a variable, allowing for the relevance metric of a variable to be updated and subsequently displayed based on the relevance threshold. User feedback may indicate that a variable is not as relevant as the view or relevance for the variable indicates. This prompts the editor integration module 412 to send a new relevance value for the variable to update the relevance metric, i.e. wherein the updating of the estimated amount includes, when the answer result indicates that the decided variable is not important, updating to increase the estimated amount of the patterns in which the order of priority of the decided variable is not equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value.)
Regarding dependent claim 4,
As discussed above with claim 1, Amos-Anaya discloses all of the limitations.
Amos further discloses the step wherein the deciding on the variables includes deciding on the variables, based on the order of priority based on the patterns indicating the ranking decided according to statistic representing at least one of correlation, mutual information content, and chi-square value for the variables, and the estimated amount. See Paragraph [0016], (Each attribute set is categorized into a plurality of predefined business attributes such as "functional" or "emotional" attributes. Depending on the client business priorities, business weights may add or remove from the relevance of questions. The client business priorities may therefore indicate that the client business priorities functional responses over emotional responses, i.e. wherein the deciding on the variables includes deciding on the variables, based on the order of priority based on the patterns indicating the ranking decided according to statistic representing at least one of correlation (e.g. the relationship between an attribute and client business priorities indicates a correlation between the priorities and the relevance of a particular attribute).)
Regarding independent claim 5,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 6,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 7,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 3 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 8,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding independent claim 9,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 10,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 11,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 3 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 12,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fernando M Mari whose telephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159