DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 06/30/2023.
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 12 are independent Claims.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 2022-113074 filed in JAPAN on 07/14/2022, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (filed 06/30/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed 06/30/2023 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
5. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01
Claim Objections
6. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“output data” (line 4) should read “the output data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. 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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that 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: “flag management information”, “an operation unit”, “a data management unit” (in Claims 1-14), “an information display unit” (in Claim 4), “an incident collection unit” (in Claims 13 and 14), and “an incident management unit” (in Claim 14) .
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.
A review of the specification shows that there does not appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the named limitations.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As given above, the named limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, rendering these limitations indefinite.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to add structure, material or acts that are sufficient to perform the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts 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 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-11:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-11 are directed to a data management system and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“manages and defines respective flags corresponding to, of a plurality of processes included in the life cycle, one or more predetermined processes” ; “operates the model along the life cycle”; “manages input data and output data of the model”; “assigns flags defined in the flag management information to the input data and the output data of the model in accordance with involvement in the predetermined processes at time of operating the model”, and “determines, with respect to each of the input data and the output data, necessity of storage of data on a basis of a flag assigned to the data by the operation unit” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The elements “a machine learning model that manages a model and associated data of the model while operating the model along a life cycle of machine learning, the data management system”, “flag management information”, “an operation unit”, and “a data management unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “a degree of importance is set for each of the flags, and with respect to each of the input data and the output data...calculates a degree of importance of data on a basis of the degree of importance of a flag assigned to the data by the operation unit” and “in a case where the calculated degree of importance is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold, determines that the data is unnecessary data that does not have to be stored” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “the data management unit” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “in a case where more than multiple flags are assigned to the input data or the output data...sets a sum of respective degrees of importance set in the flags as a degree of importance of the data” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “the data management unit” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “deletes, of unnecessary data that does not have to be stored and is displayed on the display screen, data selected by a user,” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional limitation “outputs a result of determination of the necessity of storage of the data by the data management unit to a display screen” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data outputting/displaying is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional elements “an information display unit” and “the data management unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “automatically deletes data determined to be unnecessary data that does not have to be stored” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element “the data management unit” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations “a first flag assigned to input data or output data that is used for display of a monitoring screen for monitoring accuracy of data; a second flag assigned to input data or output data that is no longer used for display of the monitoring screen; a third flag assigned to input data having a likelihood of being used in retraining of a model; a fourth flag assigned to input data used in retraining of a model after having been determined to have a likelihood of being used in retraining of the model; a fifth flag assigned to input data used in training of a model; a sixth flag assigned to, when output data generated from a newly generated model is evaluated, input data used for generation of the model and the output data generated from the model; and a seventh flag assigned to, in a case where output data detected to be abnormal by a model is not abnormal, input data that is a source based on which the model has output the output data” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “a higher degree of importance than respective degrees of importance of the second and fourth flags is set in the first, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh flags” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations “the flags managed in the flag management information includes the third flag” and “the operation unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations “generates a model using input data, and generates output data from the model”, “in a case where an abnormality is detected in the output data or in a case where the input data is determined to be rare...assigns the third flag to the input data” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations “the flags managed in the flag management information further includes the fourth and fifth flags” and “the operation unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations “in a case where accuracy of output data generated from the generated model...performs retraining of generating a new model using, of input data assigned the third flag, input data selected by a user, and, deletes the third flag from and assigns the fourth flag to the input data used in the retraining, and also assigns the fifth flag to the input data used in the retraining” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations “the flags managed in the flag management information further includes the sixth flag” and “the operation unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations “generates output data by inputting input data for evaluation selected by the user to the newly generated model, and determines accuracy of the output data and thereby evaluates the newly generated model, and assigns the sixth flag to the input data for evaluation and the output data generated by inputting the input data for evaluation” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations “the flags managed in the flag management information further includes the first and second flags” and “the operation unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations “in a case where after evaluation of the newly generated model, the model is updated as a model to be used hereafter...deletes the first flag from and assigns the second flag to the input data used for generation of the model before update...assigns the first flag to the input data used for generation of the model after update” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional limitation “output data generated from the model before update...output data generated from the model after update” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data outputting/displaying is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 12-14:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 12-14 are directed to a data management method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 12 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“manages and defines respective flags corresponding to, of a plurality of processes included in the life cycle, one or more predetermined processes”; “operates the model along the life cycle”; “manages input data and output data of the model”; “assigns flags defined in the flag management information to the input data and the output data of the model in accordance with involvement in the predetermined processes at time of operating the model”, and “determines, with respect to each of the input data and the output data, necessity of storage of data on a basis of a flag assigned to the data at the operation step” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 12 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The elements “a data management system of a machine learning model that manages a model and associated data of the model while operating the model along a life cycle of machine learning”, “flag management information”, “an operation unit”, and “a data management unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations “collects and accumulates information regarding, of output data of a model, output data detected to be abnormal by the model” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The element “an incident collection unit” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations “the flags managed in the flag management information further includes the seventh flag”, “he data management system”, and “an incident management unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations “assigns, in a case where a user has determined that the output data whose information has been accumulated by the incident collection unit is not abnormal, the seventh flag to input data that is a source of the model having generated the output data” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duplys (US 20220382865) in view of Vijayanarayanan (US 20220029803).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Duplys teaches a data management system of a machine learning model that manages a model and associated data of the model while operating the model along a life cycle of machine learning (Abstract, Fig.2, and [0010-0014]), the data management system comprising:
flag management information that manages and defines respective flags corresponding to, of a plurality of processes included in the life cycle, one or more predetermined processes ([0045], [0052-0054], and [0056-0057]);
an operation unit that operates the model along the life cycle ([0010-0014] and [0078]); and
a data management unit that manages input data and output data of the model ([0112] and [0123-0126]).
Duplys, however, does not explicitly teach the following additional limitations:
Vijayanarayanan teaches wherein the operation unit assigns flags defined in the flag management information to the input data and the output data of the model in accordance with involvement in the predetermined processes at time of operating the model, and
the data management unit determines, with respect to each of the input data and the output data, necessity of storage of data on a basis of a flag assigned to the data by the operation unit ([0489-0493]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Duplys with Vijayanarayanan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for assisting in Effective Restoration Planning by helping the AI and/or ML tool to select an order of files during restoration and thus avoid data dumping and thereby enable systematic restoration of data.
As to Claim 2:
Duplys teaches a degree of importance is set for each of the flags, and with respect to each of the input data and the output data, the data management unit calculates a degree of importance of data on a basis of the degree of importance of a flag assigned to the data by the operation unit, and, in a case where the calculated degree of importance is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold, determines that the data is unnecessary data that does not have to be stored ([0078-0081]).
As to Claim 3:
Duplys teaches in a case where more than multiple flags are assigned to the input data or the output data, the data management unit sets a sum of respective degrees of importance set in the flags as a degree of importance of the data ([0078-0081]).
As to Claim 4:
Duplys teaches an information display unit that outputs a result of determination of the necessity of storage of the data by the data management unit to a display screen, wherein the data management unit deletes, of unnecessary data that does not have to be stored and is displayed on the display screen, data selected by a user ([0100] and [0113]).
As to Claim 5:
Duplys teaches the data management unit automatically deletes data determined to be unnecessary data that does not have to be stored ([0100] and [0113]).
As to Claim 6:
Duplys does not explicitly teach, Vijayanarayanan teaches the flags managed in the flag management information includes at least any of: a first flag assigned to input data or output data that is used for display of a monitoring screen for monitoring accuracy of data; a second flag assigned to input data or output data that is no longer used for display of the monitoring screen; a third flag assigned to input data having a likelihood of being used in retraining of a model; a fourth flag assigned to input data used in retraining of a model after having been determined to have a likelihood of being used in retraining of the model; a fifth flag assigned to input data used in training of a model; a sixth flag assigned to, when output data generated from a newly generated model is evaluated, input data used for generation of the model and the output data generated from the model; and a seventh flag assigned to, in a case where output data detected to be abnormal by a model is not abnormal, input data that is a source based on which the model has output the output data ([0489-0493]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Duplys with Vijayanarayanan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for assisting in Effective Restoration Planning by helping the AI and/or ML tool to select an order of files during restoration and thus avoid data dumping and thereby enable systematic restoration of data.
As to Claim 7:
Duplys does not explicitly teach, Vijayanarayanan teaches a higher degree of importance than respective degrees of importance of the second and fourth flags is set in the first, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh flags ([0489-0493]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Duplys with Vijayanarayanan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for assisting in Effective Restoration Planning by helping the AI and/or ML tool to select an order of files during restoration and thus avoid data dumping and thereby enable systematic restoration of data.
As to Claim 8:
Duplys does not explicitly teach, Vijayanarayanan teaches the flags managed in the flag management information includes the third flag, and the operation unit generates a model using input data, and generates output data from the model, and after that, in a case where an abnormality is detected in the output data or in a case where the input data is determined to be rare, the operation unit assigns the third flag to the input data ([0489-0494]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Duplys with Vijayanarayanan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for assisting in Effective Restoration Planning by helping the AI and/or ML tool to select an order of files during restoration and thus avoid data dumping and thereby enable systematic restoration of data.
As to Claim 9:
Duplys does not explicitly teach, Vijayanarayanan teaches the flags managed in the flag management information further includes the fourth and fifth flags, and in a case where accuracy of output data generated from the generated model, the operation unit performs retraining of generating a new model using, of input data assigned the third flag, input data selected by a user, and, deletes the third flag from and assigns the fourth flag to the input data used in the retraining, and also assigns the fifth flag to the input data used in the retraining ([0489-0494]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Duplys with Vijayanarayanan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for assisting in Effective Restoration Planning by helping the AI and/or ML tool to select an order of files during restoration and thus avoid data dumping and thereby enable systematic restoration of data.
As to Claim 10:
Duplys does not explicitly teach, Vijayanarayanan teaches the flags managed in the flag management information further includes the sixth flag, and the operation unit generates output data by inputting input data for evaluation selected by the user to the newly generated model, and determines accuracy of the output data and thereby evaluates the newly generated model, and assigns the sixth flag to the input data for evaluation and the output data generated by inputting the input data for evaluation ([0489-0494]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Duplys with Vijayanarayanan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for assisting in Effective Restoration Planning by helping the AI and/or ML tool to select an order of files during restoration and thus avoid data dumping and thereby enable systematic restoration of data.
As to Claim 11:
Duplys does not explicitly teach, Vijayanarayanan teaches the flags managed in the flag management information further includes the first and second flags, and in a case where after evaluation of the newly generated model, the model is updated as a model to be used hereafter, the operation unit deletes the first flag from and assigns the second flag to the input data used for generation of the model before update and output data generated from the model before update, and also assigns the first flag to the input data used for generation of the model after update and output data generated from the model after update ([0484-0485] and [0489-0494]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Duplys with Vijayanarayanan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for assisting in Effective Restoration Planning by helping the AI and/or ML tool to select an order of files during restoration and thus avoid data dumping and thereby enable systematic restoration of data.
As to Claim 12:
Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 12 is the same as Claim 1, except Claim 12 is a method Claim and Claim 1 is a system Claim.
As to Claim 13:
Duplys teaches an incident collection unit that collects and accumulates information regarding, of output data of a model, output data detected to be abnormal by the model ([0100-0112] and [0126-0127]).
As to Claim 14:
Duplys does not explicitly teach, Vijayanarayanan teaches the flags managed in the flag management information further includes the seventh flag, and the data management system further comprises an incident management unit that assigns, in a case where a user has determined that the output data whose information has been accumulated by the incident collection unit is not abnormal, the seventh flag to input data that is a source of the model having generated the output data ([0489-0494]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Duplys with Vijayanarayanan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for assisting in Effective Restoration Planning by helping the AI and/or ML tool to select an order of files during restoration and thus avoid data dumping and thereby enable systematic restoration of data.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights