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 .
Title
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. Examiner believes that the title of the invention is imprecise. A descriptive title indicative of the invention will help in proper indexing, classifying, searching, etc. See MPEP 606.01. However, the title of the invention should be limited to 500 characters. Examiner suggests including the aspect(s) of the claims which Applicant believes to be novel or nonobvious over the prior art.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) states: The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. Specification paragraph 52 states: The score function may be further based on a comparison of one or more output link categories 20 and the prior indications of link categories 20. Accordingly, reference number 20 refers to two different parts (i.e., one or more output link categories; and the prior indications of link categories).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input module configured to receive,” “an encoder module configured to map,” “a decoder module configured to process,” and “a reinforcement learning, RL, module configured to compare/generate/update” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “an input module configured to receive,” “an encoder module configured to map,” “a decoder module configured to process,” and “a reinforcement learning, RL, module configured to compare/generate/update” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For example, while a processor executing an input module could indicate the module is software, specification paragraph 23 states, “the at least one processor 105 is able to execute the input module 110 (i.e. to activate the input device, or to control the input device, or similar),” which permits within its scope that the module is or is part of a hardware component. This is additionally supported by Figure 1 which indicates the input module 110 is part of the data processing apparatus 100. The structure of this hardware component is not disclosed in the original disclosure. This explanation likewise applies to the other 3 claimed modules. For the encoder module see paragraph 25 which states “Optionally, the encoder module 120 may be implemented in an encoder. Optionally, the encoder is a device which may be coupled to the at least one processor 105 or may be coupled to a part of the at least one processor 105.” For the decoder module see paragraph 31 which states “Optionally, the decoder module 130 may be implemented in a decoder. Optionally, the decoder is a device which may be coupled to the at least one processor 105 or may be coupled to a part of the at least one processor 105.” For the reinforcement learning module see paragraph 39 “Optionally, the RL module 140 may be implemented in the at least one processor 105. Optionally, if the at least one processor 105 comprises a plurality of processors, then the RL module 140 may be implemented in one or more processors from amongst the plurality of processors.” In these citations, the modules include hardware implementations that are not described in such a way as to include corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. These passages all indicate the modules can be hardware, but do not indicate exactly what structure they are, have, or utilize. Therefore, claims 1-15 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 14 recite, “a reinforcement learning, RL, module” which appears to be listing an abbreviation of “RL” however it isn’t clear if it is an abbreviation or another attribute of the module. It is recommended to amend these claims to recite, “a reinforcement learning (RL) module” instead.
Claim 5 has the same issue with DAG, PAG, and CPDAG.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a signal per se which is non-statutory subject matter according to MPEP 2106, which states that a signal per se is not directed to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter listed in 35 U.S.C. 101. The specification is silent on this issue. Examiner suggests amending the rejected claim(s) to include “non-transitory” before “computer readable medium” to overcome this rejection.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is an apparatus claim. Claim 14 is a method claim. Claim 15 is a CRM claim; however, in its current form is not directed to a statutory category. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Claim 15 includes a signal per se interpretation, but can be amended to overcome that rejection. Accordingly, claim 15 will be analyzed below as if it was amended to do so.
With respect to Claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1:
an encoder module configured to map the input dataset to a latent representation (mental process – user can manually map the input dataset to a latent representation)
a decoder module configured to process the latent representation and indicate a link category for each pair of variables, wherein the link category is selected from a set of categories including ‘no causal link’, ‘causally linked’ and ‘unknown’ (mental process – user can manually process the latent representation and indicate a link category for each pair of variables, wherein the link category is selected from a set of categories including ‘no causal link’, ‘causally linked’ and ‘unknown’)
compare the link category for each pair of variables with the samples for the associated variables (mental process – user can manually compare the link category for each pair of variables with the samples for the associated variables)
generate a score function including an error term based on a result of the comparison (mental process – user can manually generate a score function including an error term based on a result of the comparison)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements:
at least one processor configured to execute (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
an input module configured to (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component) receive an input dataset comprising a plurality of samples, each assigned to one of a plurality of variables (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
an encoder module configured to map the input dataset to a latent representation (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
a decoder module configured to process the latent representation and indicate a link category for each pair of variables, wherein the link category is selected from a set of categories including ‘no causal link’, ‘causally linked’ and ‘unknown’ (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
a reinforcement learning, RL, module configured 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 uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
update one or more parameters of the encoder module and decoder module based on the score function (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements:
at least one processor configured to execute (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
an input module configured to (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component) receive an input dataset comprising a plurality of samples, each assigned to one of a plurality of variables (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
an encoder module configured to map the input dataset to a latent representation (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
a decoder module configured to process the latent representation and indicate a link category for each pair of variables, wherein the link category is selected from a set of categories including ‘no causal link’, ‘causally linked’ and ‘unknown’ (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
a reinforcement learning, RL, module configured 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 uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
update one or more parameters of the encoder module and decoder module based on the score function (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
Conclusion: The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1. Additionally for claim 15: Claim 15 has the additional elements of a computer readable medium comprising instructions. These elements are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Regarding Claim 2: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the at least one processor is further configured to use the plurality of link categories to form a causal graph for the input dataset.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to use the plurality of link categories to form a causal graph for the input dataset.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to use the plurality of link categories to form a causal graph for the input dataset are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to use the plurality of link categories to form a causal graph for the input dataset amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or operation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or operation cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the score function further includes a sparsity term for the causal graph.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the decoder module is further configured to output a set of causal graphs, where each graph in the set is a Markov equivalent.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the decoder module is further configured to output a set of causal graphs, where each graph in the set is a Markov equivalent are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) of wherein the decoder module is further configured to output a set of causal graphs, where each graph in the set is a Markov equivalent recite adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of wherein the decoder module is further configured to output a set of causal graphs, where each graph in the set is a Markov equivalent amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or operation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or operation cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element(s) of wherein the decoder module is further configured to output a set of causal graphs, where each graph in the set is a Markov equivalent recite merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim) (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the causal graph is a directed acyclic graph, DAG, a partial ancestral graph, PAG, or a completed partially directed acyclic graph, CPDAG.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the input dataset further includes one or more prior indications of link categories between pairs of variables, and the score function is further based on a comparison of one or more output link categories and the prior indications of link categories.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module and the RL module in an iterative manner until a predefined end condition is reached.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module and the RL module in an iterative manner until a predefined end condition is reached.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module and the RL module in an iterative manner until a predefined end condition is reached are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module and the RL module in an iterative manner until a predefined end condition is reached amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or operation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or operation cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the end condition is a local minimum of the score function, and/or a predefined number of iterations.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module, and the RL module to perform at least one iteration in response to receiving, at the input module, one or more new samples for at least one of a plurality of variables and/or an additional variable with a plurality of assigned samples.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module, and the RL module to perform at least one iteration in response to receiving, at the input module, one or more new samples for at least one of a plurality of variables and/or an additional variable with a plurality of assigned samples.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module, and the RL module to perform at least one iteration in response to receiving, at the input module, one or more new samples for at least one of a plurality of variables and/or an additional variable with a plurality of assigned samples are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module, and the RL module to perform at least one iteration in response to receiving, at the input module, one or more new samples for at least one of a plurality of variables and/or an additional variable with a plurality of assigned samples amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or operation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or operation cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the decoder module is further configured to generate each link category sequentially and the RL module is further configured to generate the score function and update the parameters for each link category sequentially.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the encoder module and/or decoder module are initialised using parameters generated from a second dataset different to the input dataset.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the encoder module includes a transformer unit configured to generate embeddings based on text included in one or more of the samples, text labels associated with one or more of the variables or text meta-data associated with the input dataset.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the set of categories further includes a pair of categories for each direction of causality between the pair of variables, a category indicating bi-directional causality between the pair of variables and a category indicating an undirected causal link.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (hereinafter Huang), Causal Discovery from Incomplete Data using An Encoder and Reinforcement Learning in view of Huang et al. (hereinafter Xu), Bi-Directional Causal Graph Learning through Weight-sharing and Low-rank Neural Network.
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses a data processing apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute [“encoder network for extracting a robust feature representation of the incomplete data, and then integrate the learned representation into a reinforcement learning framework to search for the best causal graph” §6 ¶1]:
an input module configured to receive an input dataset comprising a plurality of samples, each assigned to one of a plurality of variables [“Given an observational dataset X є Rnxd, where each individual unit xi є Rd has d- dimensional attributes. Each attribute xij is associated with a node j in a d-node DAG G, and the observed value of xi is a sample of this DAG, totally n samples. To infer causal relationships among these attributes, we want to find an adjacency matrix A є Rdxd. Each value of the adjacency matric A describes the causality between these two attributes.” §3.1 ¶1];
an encoder module configured to map the input dataset to a latent representation [“our proposed actor is an encoder-decoder neural network” §3.2 ¶1; “The encoder aims to extract robust features” §3.2 ¶ 2; Fig. 1];
a decoder module configured to process the latent representation and indicate a link category for each pair of variables [“our proposed actor is an encoder-decoder neural network” §3.2 ¶1; “The decoder aims to generate graphs from the features” §3.2 ¶9; Fig. 1], wherein the link category is selected from a set of categories including ‘no causal link’, ‘causally linked’ [“generate a binary adjacency matrix” §3.2 ¶9] and ‘unknown’;
a reinforcement learning, RL, module [“Reinforcement Learning: Critic” §3.3] configured to:
compare the link category for each pair of variables with the samples for the associated variables [“The job of the critic is to evaluate actions generated by the actor so that the actor can update its policy based on the evaluation score” §3.3 ¶1; Fig. 1],
generate a score function including an error term based on a result of the comparison [“calculate the value score of the encoded feature” §3.3 ¶2], and
update one or more parameters of the encoder module and decoder module based on the score function [“the actor can update its policy based on the evaluation score” §3.3 ¶1].
However, Huang fails to explicitly disclose and ‘unknown’.
Xu discloses and ‘unknown’ [“the causal graphs are unknown or partially known” §1 ¶3].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huang and Xu before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Huang to incorporate the unknown link category of Xu.
Given the advantage of identifying link categories and specifically including when a link is unknown in order to prevent relying on unknown information, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 2, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 1. Huang further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to use the plurality of link categories to form a causal graph for the input dataset [“an RL-based approach for learning causal graphs” §1 ¶6; “generates candidate causal graphs from observational data” §3 ¶1; Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 3, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 2. Huang further discloses wherein the score function further includes a sparsity term for the causal graph [“λ1 and λ 2 are two penalty coefficients” §3.3 ¶5].
Regarding Claim 4, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 2. Huang further discloses wherein the decoder module is further configured to output a set of causal graphs, where each graph in the set is a Markov equivalent [“generates candidate causal graphs from observational data” §3 ¶1].
Regarding Claim 5, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 2. Huang further discloses wherein the causal graph is a directed acyclic graph, DAG [“causal relationships among a set of variables could be represented as a directed acyclic graph (DAG)” §1 ¶2; “causal graph G from the directed acyclic graph space (denoted as DAGs)” §1 ¶2], a partial ancestral graph, PAG, or a completed partially directed acyclic graph, CPDAG.
Regarding Claim 6, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 1. Huang further discloses wherein the input dataset further includes one or more prior indications of link categories between pairs of variables, and the score function is further based on a comparison [“based on the evaluation score” §3.3 ¶1] of one or more output link categories and the prior indications of link categories.
However, Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the input dataset further includes one or more prior indications of link categories between pairs of variables, and the score function is further based on a comparison of one or more output link categories and the prior indications of link categories.
Xu discloses wherein the input dataset further includes one or more prior indications of link categories between pairs of variables [“the causal graphs are unknown or partially known” §1 ¶3; “labeled relationship for training” §IV ¶7], and the score function is further based on a comparison of one or more output link categories and the prior indications of link categories [“labeled relationship for training” §IV ¶7].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huang and Xu before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate labeled training data of link categories of Xu.
Given the advantage of supervised learning to increase accuracy, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 7, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 1. Huang further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module and the RL module in an iterative manner until a predefined end condition is reached [“our proposed actor is an encoder-decoder neural network” §3.2 ¶1; “proposed reinforcement learning framework” Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 8, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 7. Huang further discloses wherein the end condition is a local minimum of the score function, and/or a predefined number of iterations [“Minimizing the loss by backward optimizing the neural network is equivalent to optimizing the actor in reinforcement learning” §3.3 ¶7; “calculate the gradient ▽Loss and use backward to optimize the actor. Therefore, iff ▽Loss = 0, we obtain the best actor” §3.3 ¶8].
Regarding Claim 11, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 1. Huang further discloses wherein the encoder module and/or decoder module are initialised using parameters generated from a second dataset different to the input dataset [“we initialize the ImNet with pre-trained parameters for the sake of faster training” §3.2 ¶7].
Regarding Claim 12, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 1. Huang further discloses wherein the encoder module includes a transformer unit configured to generate embeddings based on text included in one or more of the samples, text labels associated with one or more of the variables or text meta-data associated with the input dataset [“In our encoder-decoder neural network for generating causal graphs, we adopt the Transformer structure [28] for extracting robust features from the imputed data.” ֻ§3.2 ¶8].
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Xu in view of Jin et al. (hereinafter Jin), Visual Causality Analysis of Event Sequence Data.
Regarding Claim 9, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 7. Huang further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the encoder module, the decoder module, and the RL module to perform at least one iteration [“our proposed actor is an encoder-decoder neural network” §3.2 ¶1; “proposed reinforcement learning framework” Fig. 1].
However, Huang fails to explicitly disclose in response to receiving, at the input module, one or more new samples for at least one of a plurality of variables and/or an additional variable with a plurality of assigned samples.
Jin discloses in response to receiving, at the input module, one or more new samples for at least one of a plurality of variables and/or an additional variable with a plurality of assigned samples [“causality analysis model will be retrained with the user’s feedback of the confirmed causal relations and update the causal graph with the regenerated causality analysis result” pg. 7 col. 1 ¶1; Fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huang, Xu, and Jin before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate receiving new samples to retrain the models of Jin.
Given the advantage of ensure consistent accuracy, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 10, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 1.
However, Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the decoder module is further configured to generate each link category sequentially and the RL module is further configured to generate the score function and update the parameters for each link category sequentially.
Jin discloses wherein the decoder module is further configured to generate each link category sequentially and the RL module is further configured to generate the score function and update the parameters for each link category sequentially [“laying out the causal graph in sequential order can facilitate the searching process of root cause and derived effects. Following this finding, we choose to visualize the causal graph using a top-bottom sequential layout.” §5.2 ¶3].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huang, Xu, and Jin before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate sequential implementation of Jin.
Given the advantage of facilitating the searching process of root cause and derived effects, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Xu in view of Glymour et al. (hereinafter Glymour), Review of Causal Discovery Methods Based on Graphical Models.
Regarding Claim 13, Huang and Xu disclose the data processing apparatus of claim 1.
However, Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of categories further includes a pair of categories for each direction of causality between the pair of variables, a category indicating bi-directional causality between the pair of variables and a category indicating an undirected causal link.
Glymour discloses wherein the set of categories further includes a pair of categories for each direction of causality between the pair of variables [Fig. 5 between Raf and Mek, or Akt and Pka], a category indicating bi-directional causality between the pair of variables [Fig. 2 (C) between Y and Z] and a category indicating an undirected causal link [Fig. 1 (B)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huang, Xu, and Glymour before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate the various known causality link types of Glymour.
Given the advantage of accurately identifying the links between elements for determining correct causality, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claim(s) above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim(s), typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Additionally, any claim amendments for any reason should include remarks indicating clear support in the originally filed specification.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c). Additionally when amending, in their remarks Applicant should particularly cite to the supporting paragraphs in the original disclosure for the amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H BEJCEK II whose telephone number is (571)270-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michelle T. Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2148
/MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights