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 .
This action is responsive to the application filed 06/30/2023.
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior filed application KR10-2022-0081359, filed 07/01/2022, is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 06/30/2023 has been considered by the examiner
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 4 recites ‘related to sense of’; however, it should recite - - related to a sense of - -.
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 limitations use 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) are: an input providing unit configured to, an analysis unit configured to, a dimension separator configured to, a first separator configured to, a second separator configured to, a third separator configured to, a first analyzer, a second analyzer, and a third analyzer configured to, a first weighting unit configured to, a second weighting unit configured to, a controller configured to, a grade providing unit configured to, a solution providing unit configured to, and a feedback unit configured to in claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1,
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of providing input data and analyzing, separating, and grading the data. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3,
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of separating the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4,
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of providing social, factual, and temporal dimension information. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5,
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of analyzing, classifying, and grading the social dimension, factual dimension, and temporal dimension. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6,
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of providing global weights across the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information and providing fine weights differently to the plurality of categories. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8,
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of selectively turning on the first and second weighting unit according to an operation mode. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9,
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of providing a weighted grade using the global and fine weights, and providing a conflict resolution solution using the weighted grade. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10,
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of feeding response data information for the conflict resolution solution back to the input providing unit. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-10,
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on parent claims failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
Claim limitation “an input providing unit configured to provide input data information” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification lacks description of what the input providing unit is composed of. The specification discloses that “an information provider may be a subject who faces a conflict situation in the course of daily life, and the input data information ID may include all audio, text, and video data related to the conflict situation of the information provider”; however, there is no disclosure for performing the data inputting. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function.
Claim limitation “an analysis unit configured to analyze the input data information, separate the input data information into a plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information, and provide an analysis grade corresponding to each of the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The specification discloses that the analysis unit “may include an artificial intelligence unit” and “may further include a dimension separator”. There is no disclosure of what model the artificial intelligence unit is built on (RNN, CNN, etc.) nor is there structure or description of how a specific feature of the dimension separator operates. The use of the term “artificial intelligence unit” is not adequate structure for performing the analysis because it does not describe the specific type of artificial intelligence being used. Similarly, the use of the term “dimension separator” is not adequate structure for performing the separating because it does not describe how the unit is actually separating the input data. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 3,
Claim limitation “a dimension separator configured to separate the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of separating input data is performed by a “first, second and third separator”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure or component, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the separating. The mention of the first, second, and third separators are not adequate structure for performing the data separating because it does not describe the process or component that will perform the function. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 4,
Claim limitation “a first separator configured to provide social dimension information corresponding to information related to sense of ethics of an information provider among the input data information” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of providing social dimension information is done by the “first separator”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data providing or separating. The use of the term “first separator” is not adequate structure for performing the data separation because there is no structure as to how this process is done or how the separator classifies the ethics/social information. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function.
Claim limitation “a second separator configured to provide factual dimension information corresponding to information related to a cause of a conflict of the information provider among the input data information” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of providing factual dimension information is done by the “second separator”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data providing or separating. The use of the term “second separator” is not adequate structure for performing the data separation because there is no structure as to how this process is done or how the separator classifies the factual information. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function.
Claim limitation “a third separator configured to provide temporal dimension information corresponding to information related to change in perception of the cause of the conflict of the information provider over time among the input data information” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of providing temporal dimension information is done by the “third separator”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data providing or separating. The use of the term “third separator” is not adequate structure for performing the data separation because there is no structure as to how this process is done or how the separator classifies the time-based, temporal, or perception information. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 5,
Claim limitation “a first analyzer, a second analyzer, and a third analyzer configured to analyze the social dimension information, the factual dimension information, and the temporal dimension information, classify the social dimension information, the factual dimension information, and the temporal dimension information into a plurality of categories, and provide analysis grades” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of analyzing and classifying the social, factual, and temporal dimensions as well as provide grades to those dimensions is done by the “first, second, and third analyzer”. For the social dimension, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the classifying, analyzing, and grading of social dimension information. Further, there is nothing that describes exactly how these steps are accomplished. The use of the term “first analyzer” is not adequate structure for performing these steps because it does not describe a particular structure or process for achieving each specific step. For the factual dimension, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the classifying, analyzing, and grading of factual dimension information. Further, there is nothing that describes exactly how these steps are accomplished. The use of the term “second analyzer” is not adequate structure for performing these steps because it does not describe a particular structure or process for achieving each specific step. For the temporal dimension, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the classifying, analyzing, and grading of temporal dimension information. Further, there is nothing that describes exactly how these steps are accomplished. The use of the term “third analyzer” is not adequate structure for performing these steps because it does not describe a particular structure or process for achieving each specific step. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 6,
Claim limitation “a first weighting unit configured to provide global weights corresponding to weights applied to the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of providing global weights to the plurality of pieces of analysis dimensions is performed by the “first weighting unit”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the weight providing. The specification does mention applying the weights equally across categories; however, it fails to disclose how they are applied . The use of the term “first weighting unit” is not adequate structure for performing weight providing because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function.
Claim limitation “a second weighting unit configured to provide fine weights corresponding to weights differently applied to the plurality of categories” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of providing fine weights differently to the plurality of categories is performed by “second weighting unit”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the weight providing. The specification does mention applying the weights differently across categories; however, it fails to disclose how they are applied or how the units applied differently. The use of the term “second weighting unit” is not adequate structure for performing weight providing because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 8,
Claim limitation “a controller configured to selectively turn on the first weighting unit and the second weighting unit according to an operation mode” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of selectively turning on the first and second weighting units according to an operation mode is performed by a “controller”. The specification does mention that the controller can send a signal CS1 and CS2 to each weighting unit which can specify which unit should turn on; however, the use of the term “controller” is not adequate structure for turning signals on and off because it does not describe a particular structure or type of controller for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “controller” could relate to anything in the realm of hardware, software or a state signal or some combination that signals when to do something. T As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim limitation “a grade providing unit configured to provide a weighted grade obtained by applying the global weights and the fine weights to the analysis grades” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of providing a weighted grade to an analysis grade is performed by a “grade providing unit”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the grade providing. Further, the specification fails to define how the grades are applied, the evaluation used, or how the grades are outputted. The use of the term “grade providing unit” is not adequate structure for performing grade providing because it does not describe a particular structure or method for performing the function. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function.
Claim limitation “a solution providing unit configured to provide a conflict resolution solution corresponding to the weighted grade” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of providing a conflict resolution solution is performed by the “solution providing unit”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the conflict solution providing. The specification does mention outputting the conflict resolution solution to a lookup table; however, it fails to disclose how the solution is determined and applied to different categories. The use of the term “solution providing unit” is not adequate structure for performing solution providing because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim limitation “a feedback unit configured to feed response data information of the information provider for the conflict resolution solution back to the input providing unit” invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of feeding response data information is performed by a “feedback unit”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform response data information feeding outside of the “feedback unit”. The specification does mention transmitting the information to the input unit; however, it fails to disclose how to replicate the specific “feedback unit”. The use of the term “feedback unit” is not adequate structure for performing response data information feeding because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As a result, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations 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.
Regarding claims 2-10,
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for depending on an indefinite parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites “A conflict analysis system comprising:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
analyze the input data information, separate the input data information into a plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information, and provide an analysis grade corresponding to each of the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information: These limitations recite mentally performable processes with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement to analyze the observed input data information, separate the observed input data information into a plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information, and evaluate the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information to provide an analysis grade corresponding to each of the plurality of pieces. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
an input providing unit configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
provide input data information: These additional elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution of data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
an analysis unit to configure: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking generic computer components to apply the underlying judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering recited by “provide input data information” which are well-understood routine and conventual activities similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 2
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
an artificial intelligence unit generated by learning big data related to social conflicts occurring through social phenomena: These additional elements recite only the idea of a solution or outcome that is implemented and attempts to cover any implementation of the artificial intelligence unit without any restriction as to if the artificial intelligence unit is pre-trained, trained in real-time etc., and no details of the artificial intelligence unit’s mechanisms, e.g. is the model a deep neural network, RNN, CNN, etc. Thus, these additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include adding words equivalent to "apply it" with the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 2 as well as, inter alia:
separate the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of separating the observed input data information into a plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
a dimension separator configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking generic computer components to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 4
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 3 as well as, inter alia:
provide social dimension information corresponding to information related to sense of ethics of an information provider among the input data information: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement to classify the information related to a sense of ethics into the social dimension category.
provide factual dimension information corresponding to information related to a cause of a conflict of the information provider among the input data information: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement to classify the information related to a cause of a conflict into the factual dimension category.
provide temporal dimension information corresponding to information related to change in perception of the cause of the conflict of the information provider over time among the input data information: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement to classify the information related to change in perception of the cause of the conflict of the information provider over time into the temporal dimension category. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
a first separator: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
a second separator: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
a third separator: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking generic computer components to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 5
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 4 as well as, inter alia:
analyze the social dimension information, the factual dimension information, and the temporal dimension information: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement and observation to analyze the social, factual, and temporal dimensions.
classify the social dimension information, the factual dimension information, and the temporal dimension information into a plurality of categories: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement and evaluation to classify the social, factual, and temporal dimensions into a plurality of categories.
provide analysis grades: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement and evaluation to provide analysis grades. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
a first analyzer, a second analyzer, and a third analyzer configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking generic computer components to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 6
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 5 as well as, inter alia:
provide global weights corresponding to weights applied to the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement to provide a global weight to the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information.
provide fine weights corresponding to weights differently applied to the plurality of categories: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement to provide a fine weight differently to each of the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
a first weighting unit configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
a second weighting unit configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking generic computer components to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 7
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 6 as well as, inter alia:
global weights are determined depending on the analysis grade calculated for each of the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information: These limitations recite mathematical relationships wherein a grade is calculated for each piece of analysis dimension information.
fine weights are determined depending on the analysis grades of the plurality of categories included in each of the first to third separators: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using observation and evaluation to view an analysis grade for each of the plurality of categories included in each of the first to third separators. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 7 as well as, inter alia:
selectively turn on the first weighting unit and the second weighting unit according to an operation mode: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement to decide whether to turn on the first or second weighting unit according to a certain operation mode. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
a controller configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking generic computer components to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 9
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 8 as well as, inter alia:
provide a weighted grade obtained by applying the global weights and the fine weights to the analysis grades: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement to apply the global and fine weights and using evaluation to provide a weighted grade.
provide a conflict resolution solution corresponding to the weighted grade: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using judgement and evaluation to provide a conflict resolution solution corresponding to the weighted grade. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
a grade providing unit configured: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
a solution providing unit configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to apply the underlying judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking generic computer components to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 10
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 9 .
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
a feedback unit configured to feed response data information of the information provider for the conflict resolution solution back to the input providing unit: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception because limiting application of the abstract idea to feeding feedback response data for the conflict resolution solution is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, similar to limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include generally link the use of the judicial exception to indicate a field of use or technological environment. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 2016/0189057 A1, published 06/30/2016), hereinafter Rao.
Regarding independent claim 1, Rao teaches a conflict analysis system comprising:
an input providing unit configured to provide input data information ([0018] discusses a machine-learning based classifier that “receives and processes the input data”; thus, the system is provided input data); and
an analysis unit configured to analyze the input data information ([0018] discusses a machine-learning based classifier to “process” the input data and generate “a plurality of features corresponding to the input data”), separate the input data information into a plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information (FIG 2 and [0025] discuss segregating the input data into “a plurality of n-grams of size” which are then analyzed as individual features or categories), provide an analysis grade corresponding to each of the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information ([0033] “assigning a first score to only those words that exactly match the database entries”, [0036] discusses generating a second score for each feature, [0037] teaches generating a classification score using the second score; thus, the system provides a grade to each piece of analysis dimension information).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Wroczynski et al. (US 11151318 B2) hereafter Wroczynski.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Rao teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system includes: an artificial intelligence unit (FIG. 1, paragraphs [0018] and [0064] discuss a machine-learning based classifier to analyze, separate, and score the input data; thus, the system uses an artificial intelligence unit).
Rao does not expressly teach the artificial intelligence unit learning through big data related to social conflicts occurring through social phenomena.
However, Wroczynski teaches the use of an artificial intelligence unit that is trained on data related to social conflicts, specifically online violence ([COL. 1, Lines 37-43] “The input is a text, which is processed by Online Violence Detection System 202 consisting of Machine Learning Techniques 204 trained on Manually Annotated Corpus 206. Online Violence Detection System 202 produces Online Violence Detection System Output 208 which is then used by Other Systems/Applications”).
Because Rao and Wroczynski teach the use of an artificial intelligence unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of an artificial intelligence unit that is trained on data relating to social conflict as taught by Wroczynski into Rao’s system, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that a system incorporates an artificial intelligence unit generated by learning big data related to social conflicts occurring through social phenomena to analyze, separate, and grade input data information. This combination would have been motivated by the desire to create an artificial intelligence unit that parses input text in relation to a social conflict database (Wroczynski COL. 4, Lines 20-35).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the combination of Rao and Wroczynski teaches the claimed invention as claimed in claim 2 including a dimension separator configured to separate the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information (Rao, paragraph [0025] discusses a “feature extraction module configured to convert the input data into a plurality of n-grams of size selected from the group of sizes consisting of size 1, size 2 and size 3, the feature extraction module further configured to process each of the n-grains as individual features”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Wroczynski et al. US 11151318 B2) hereafter Wroczynski, as applied in claims 3 above, and further in view of Preethi et al., (“Temporal Sentiment Analysis and Causal Rules Extraction from Tweets for Event Prediction” Procedia Computer Science Vol. 48, Pages 84-89) hereafter Preethi.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the combination of Rao and Wroczynski teaches the invention as claimed in claim 3 including a first separator configured to provide social dimension information corresponding to information related to sense of ethics of an information provider among the input data information (Rao, paragraph [0011] discusses a system “for categorizing the input data of different kinds and at different scales as per the user requirements (for example, Positive and Negative sentiment or Bullish and Bearish sentiment or Euphoric, Happy, Neutral, Sad and Depressed sentiment)”).
The combination of Rao and Wroczynski does not expressly teach a second separator configured to provide factual dimension information corresponding to information related to a cause of a conflict of the information provider among the input data information; and a third separator configured to provide temporal dimension information corresponding to information related to change in perception of the cause of the conflict of the information provider over time among the input data information.
However, Preethi teaches a factual separator (Table 1 & Pg. 86-88 discuss extracting (or separating) factual/causal/event-based keywords for analysis); and a temporal separator (Table 1, Abstract & Pg. 87 discuss extracting sentiment keywords over a time period to identify and make note of change in attitude or opinion and thus, teaches a separator used to identify information within the temporal dimension).
Because the combination of Rao and Wroczynski teaches a separator for the social dimension and Preethi teaches a separator for the factual and temporal dimensions, accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of extracting keywords relating to facts or the cause of an event, and extracting keywords and sentiment across different time periods as suggested by Preethi into the combination of Rao and Wroczynski’s computer-implemented system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to teach a first separator configured to provide social dimension information corresponding to information related to sense of ethics of an information provider among the input data information; a second separator configured to provide factual dimension information corresponding to information related to a cause of a conflict of the information provider among the input data information; and a third separator configured to provide temporal dimension information corresponding to information related to change in perception of the cause of the conflict of the information provider over time among the input data information. This combination would have been motivated by the desire to address the idea that temporal sentiment analysis is crucial for analyzing the relationship between sentiment and time, and causal analysis is crucial for identifying the cause and effect of a certain event (Preethi [Abstract]).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the combination of Rao, Wroczynski, and Preethi further teaches the invention as claimed in claim 4 including a first analyzer, a second analyzer, and a third analyzer configured to analyze the social dimension information, the factual dimension information, and the temporal dimension information, classify the social dimension information, the factual dimension information, and the temporal dimension information into a plurality of categories, and provide analysis grades, respectively (Rao [0067] discusses generating a score specific to the data which corresponds with the social (sentiment) dimension, as well as analyzing the data as a whole to generate a classification score and classifies the data into “a predetermined category (For example, Positive and Negative OR Bullish and Bearish OR Euphoric, Happy, Neutral, Sad and Depressed; and Preethi [Table 1 & Steps 3-4] discusses the calculation for causal rule detection which is classified and then evaluated to receive a grade); and Preethi [Table 1 & FIG. 1] discusses classifying sentiment across different time periods and show assigning a grade, or in this specific case a “prediction”, and thus, demonstrates a temporal analyzer to provide a grade).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Wroczynski et al. US 11151318 B2) hereafter Wroczynski, in view of Preethi et al., “Temporal Sentiment Analysis and Causal Rules Extraction from Tweets for Event Prediction” Procedia Computer Science Vol. 48, Pages 84-89 (2015) hereafter Preethi, as applied in claim 5 above, and further in view of Jadhav et al. (US 9779441 B1) hereafter Jadhav.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the combination of Rao, Wroczynski, and Preethi teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5 including a first weighting unit configured to provide global weights corresponding to weights applied to the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information (Rao [0043] discusses separating each word into its corresponding token, Rao [0045] discusses assigning a score to each of the words that are segregated, Rao [0046] discusses refining the score based on syntactical connectivity to a set of negators and intensifiers; and thus, teaches a system that assigns a score, or weight, across each piece of analysis dimension).
The combination of Rao, Wroczynski, and Preethi does not expressly teach a second weighting unit configured to provide fine weights corresponding to weights differently applied to the plurality of categories.
However, Jadhav teaches a method for relevancy ranking where they disclose a weighting unit to provide fine weights differently to each criterion ([COL. 5, Lines 11-13] discusses a weight-assignment module that places different weights on an attribute based on the importance of said attribute to a category).
Because the combination of Rao, Wroczynski, and Preethi teaches the idea of applying a global weight and Jadhav teaches the idea of applying fine weights, accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of a weighting module that can assign a higher importance to certain categories or dimensions being scored to emphasize specific parts of input data as taught by Jadhav into Rao, Wroczynski, and Preethi’s computer-implemented system, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the system can make use of both a global weight that is evenly applied and a fine weight that is applied differently to each category to teach a first weighting unit configured to provide global weights corresponding to weights applied to the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information; and a second weighting unit configured to provide fine weights corresponding to weights differently applied to the plurality of categories. This combination would have been motivated by the desire to rank relevance based on input text (Jadhav [COL. 1, Lines 58-65]). Thus, this would extend to using equal relevance as well as selective relevance to create a system that predated the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rao, Wroczynski, Preethi, and Jadhav teaches the invention as claimed in claim 6 including the global weights are determined depending on the analysis grade calculated for each of the plurality of pieces of analysis dimension information, and the fine weights are determined depending on the analysis grades of the plurality of categories included in each of the first to third separators (Rao [0063] discusses assigning a first score to each of the plurality of words. The words are then assigned “weight” by refining their score based on their syntactical connectivity to the negators; and Jadhav [COL. 7, Lines 49-53] discusses scoring an attribute and then further weighing that attribute based on the score). Consequently, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Wroczynski et al. US 11151318 B2) hereafter Wroczynski, in view of Preethi et al., “Temporal Sentiment Analysis and Causal Rules Extraction from Tweets for Event Prediction” Procedia Computer Science Vol. 48, Pages 84-89 (2015) hereafter Preethi, in view of Jadhav et al. ( US 9779441 B1) hereafter Jadhav, as applied in claim 7, and further in view of Rehling et al. (US 8463595 B1) hereafter Rehling.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rao, Wroczynski, Preethi, and Jadhav teaches the use of a “global weight” mentioned in claim 6. This inherently requires the use of a controller configured to selectively turn on the first weighting unit according to an operation mode (Rao [0045] assigning, the first score to each of the words segregated from the input data; Rao [0046] discusses selectively refining the score assigned to each of the words based on the syntactical connectivity between each of the words and a plurality of negators and intensifiers).
The combination of Rao, Wroczynski, Preethi, and Jadhav does not expressly teach a controller configured to turn on the second weighting unit according to an operation mode.
However, Rehling teaches a sentiment analysis system that has two operation modes, one that applies a global weight, and the other where distinct weights are applied based on importance ([COL. 9, Lines 9-19] discusses evaluating documents across all dimensions evenly, corresponding to a global weight operation mode; and placing higher weight on certain categories for a specific type of sentiment evaluation, which corresponds to a fine weight operation mode).
Because the combination of Rao, Wroczynski, Preethi, and Jadhav teaches selecting the first weighting unit and Rehling teaches a system that can select between a first and second weighting unit, accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of a system that can select between two weighting units based off an operation mode as taught by Rehling into Rao, Wroczynski, Preethi, and Jadhav’s computer-implemented system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to teach a controller configured to selectively turn on the first weighting unit and the second weighting unit according to an operation mode. This substitution would have been motivated by the desire to include two weighting units to perform sentiment analysis on text for both general cases where dimensions are evaluated evenly and for specific situations where certain dimensions of text input hold higher importance to the sentiment of that text (Rehling Background & COL. 9, Lines 36-62).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rao, Wroczynski, Preethi, Jadhav, and Rehling teaches a grade providing unit configured to provide a weighted grade obtained by applying the global weights and the fine weights to the analysis grades (Jadhav [COL. 5, Lines 13-17] discusses combining the weights of each attribute with its score to provide a grade in the category); and a solution providing unit configured to provide a conflict resolution solution corresponding to the weighted grade (Rao [0067] discusses generating a classification score based on combining the first and second scores; and discusses taking the classification score (weighted grade) and outputting a corresponding category such as ‘Positive’ or ‘Negative’ (solution)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rao, Wroczynski, Preethi, Jadhav, and Rehling further teaches a feedback unit configured to feed response data information of the information provider for the conflict resolution solution back to the input providing unit (Rao [0094] discusses a self-learning system; Rao [0095] discusses Machine Learning providing constant feedback in respect of processed text/data; Rao [0096] discusses consuming a training set and refining the system parameters based on the set). Consequently, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MURPHY et al., US 2008/0016058 A1 (Jan. 17, 2008) (ABSTRACT A method of identifying a best candidate from a plurality of candidates that are to be evaluated according to a plurality of criterions is provided. For each of the candidates, at least two grades are established for each criterion associated therewith. For each of the candidates, at least two weighted sums are then generated. The weighted sums are presented for at least one of the candidates).
SAATY, “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Scientia Iranica, (2002, Vol. 9, No. 3, pages 215-229) (ABSTRACT a decision hierarchy is constructed with a goal, criteria, and alternatives. The criteria are pairwise compared for their importance with respect to each criterion to derive relative scales).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY S ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-8714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer N Welch can be reached at (571)272-7212. 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.
/RILEY S ACOSTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2143
/JENNIFER N WELCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights