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 .
Amendments
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/03/2026.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 9 have been amended.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
No new claims have been added.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/03/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of the previous office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Claim 2 adds the limitation of “accepts, by detecting an input operation from the user” and replaces “and” with “or”. However, the claim remains unclear regarding the determination of whether an element is appropriate or inappropriate.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a technical improvement to the field of advertising management devices that allegedly solves a specific technical problem in the field of information processing devices, namely “that it may be impossible to derive a hypothesis which is convincing to a user”. Applicant further argues that, by the display device displaying the plurality of elements making up each of the plurality of hypotheses, it is possible for the user using the information processing device to determine whether each of the elements, which make up each of the hypotheses, is appropriate or not and feed a result of the determination back to the processing device. Applicant further argues that the regeneration process based on feedback from the user results in at least one hypothesis likely to be more convincing than the hypotheses previously generated.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong 2, the alleged improvement of displaying hypotheses to a user is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of presenting information (e.g., a generated hypothesis), and does not integrate the abstract idea of generating and/or regenerating hypotheses into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) - Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Under Step 2B, the additional elements recited in the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as shown in the 101 rejections below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited art of record does not teach or suggest the newly added limitations:
display hypothesis graphs in each of the plurality of elements, which make up the each of the plurality of hypotheses, wherein a combination of the plurality of elements are expressed with use of nodes and at least one edge […];
display a selection screen together with the hypothesis graphs, the selection screen being configured to accept, from the user, a selection of a content of a feedback […]; and
the at least one processor updates the constraint condition in accordance with the content of the feedback selected on the selection screen, and regenerates the at least one hypothesis by applying the updated constraint condition.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of GERKEN, VANDERHAEGEN, and BAGCHI teaches the newly added limitations indicated above. Specifically, GERKEN teaches displaying a graphical rendition that branches into four different hypotheses, where each node in the graph represents an event. While GERKEN teaches a graphical user interface that receives user inquiries (GERKEN [0075]), it lacks receipt of feedback on displayed nodes. VANDERHAEGEN teaches displaying causal graph actions that allow a user to modify the causal graphs for diagnosis and update information on all viewpoints each time the user intervenes (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5358, section 3.2. Application to phone troubleshooting]), thus teaching displaying a selection screen together with the hypothesis graphs. Further, the information is updated when the user selects/rejects a particular part of a graph, thus also teaching the selection screen being configured to accept. Further, VANDERHAEGEN also teaches applying the constraint condition as MASK (
C
i
), which keeps track of SELECT and REJECT functions applied by the user to the hypothesis event. BAGCHI teaches automatically generating candidate answers in hypothesis generation based on updated factors and updated information from the sources using the computerized device. For the above stated reasons, and the reasons detailed in the 103 rejections below, the combination of GERKEN, VANDERHAEGEN, and BAGCHI presents a reasonable prima facie case of obviouness, thus rendering claim 1, and analogous independent claims 7 and 9, obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims and are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is 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 2:
The claim recites “feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate / inappropriate”. However, neither the specification nor the claims specify a criterion for determining what constitutes appropriate vs. inappropriate. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to objectively make a determination of an element being either appropriate or inappropriate. Thus, the lack of clarity regarding these terms renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to a process. Claims 1-4, 6, and 9 are directed to a machine or an article of manufacture.
With respect to claim(s) 1, 7, and 9:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
(Claims 1 and 9) a hypothesis generation process comprising […]
(Claim 7) A hypothesis generation method comprising: […]
[…] generating, by abductive inference, a plurality of hypotheses that differ from each other; (Mental process – A person can generate (think of) a plurality of hypotheses by abductive inference in the mind or by the physical aid of pen and paper – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
and regenerating at least one hypothesis, (Mental process – A person can mentally regenerate (think of) a hypothesis – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim limitations fall within the mathematical or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
(Claim 1) An information processing device comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 9) A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which a program for causing a computer to function as an information processing device is recorded, the program causing the computer to carry out: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 9) an acceptance process comprising […]
[…] accepting, from a user, a feedback on at least one of the plurality of elements that have been displayed, (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
(Claims 1 and 9) a hypothesis display process comprising […]
[…] causing a display device to display a plurality of elements making up each of the plurality of hypotheses that have been generated; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
(Claims 1 and 9) in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor […]
[…] applying a constraint condition which varies depending on the feedback, […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 7) the steps (a) through (d) being carried out by at least one processor. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 9) in the hypothesis display process, the at least one processor […]
(Claim 7) wherein step (b) further comprises […]
[…] causes/causing the display device to display hypothesis graphs in each of the plurality of elements, which make up the each of the plurality of hypotheses, (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
wherein a combination of the plurality of elements are expressed with use of nodes and at least one edge; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 9) in the acceptance process, the at least one processor causes the display device to […]
(Claim 7) wherein step (c) further comprises […]
display/displaying a selection screen together with the hypothesis graphs, (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
the selection screen being configured to accept, from the user, a selection of a content of a feedback on at least one selected from a group consisting of: the nodes or the at least one edge in each of the hypothesis graphs; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 9) and in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor […]
(Claim 7) wherein step (a) further comprises […]
updates/updating the constraint condition in accordance with the content of the feedback selected on the selection screen, and regenerates the at least one hypothesis by applying the updated constraint condition. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
(Claim 1) An information processing device comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 9) A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which a program for causing a computer to function as an information processing device is recorded, the program causing the computer to carry out: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 9) an acceptance process comprising […]
[…] accepting, from a user, a feedback on at least one of the plurality of elements that have been displayed, (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
(Claims 1 and 9) a hypothesis display process comprising […]
[…] causing a display device to display a plurality of elements making up each of the plurality of hypotheses that have been generated; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) - Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
(Claims 1 and 9) in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor […]
[…] applying a constraint condition which varies depending on the feedback, […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 7) the steps (a) through (d) being carried out by at least one processor. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 9) in the hypothesis display process, the at least one processor […]
(Claim 7) wherein step (b) further comprises […]
[…] causes/causing the display device to display hypothesis graphs in each of the plurality of elements, which make up the each of the plurality of hypotheses, (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) - Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
wherein a combination of the plurality of elements are expressed with use of nodes and at least one edge; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 9) in the acceptance process, the at least one processor causes the display device to […]
(Claim 7) wherein step (c) further comprises […]
display/displaying a selection screen together with the hypothesis graphs, (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) - Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
the selection screen being configured to accept, from the user, a selection of a content of a feedback on at least one selected from a group consisting of: the nodes or the at least one edge in each of the hypothesis graphs; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 9) and in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor […]
(Claim 7) wherein step (a) further comprises […]
updates/updating the constraint condition in accordance with the content of the feedback selected on the selection screen, and regenerates the at least one hypothesis by applying the updated constraint condition. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 2:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
(i) a feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate or (ii) a feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is inappropriate; (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate a plurality of elements to indicate the elements as appropriate or inappropriate – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
in the hypothesis generation process, (Mental process – A person can mentally perform a hypothesis generation process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
and regenerates the at least one hypothesis. (Mental process – A person can mentally regenerate (think of) a hypothesis – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts, by detecting an input operation from the user, at least one of […] (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
the at least one processor applies at least one of (1) the constraint condition that the at least one of the plurality of elements, on which the feedback indicating that the at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate has been provided, is included and (2) the constraint condition that the at least one of the plurality of elements, on which the feedback indicating that the at least one of the plurality of elements is inappropriate has been provided, is not included, (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts at least one of […] (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
the at least one processor applies at least one of (1) the constraint condition that the at least one of the plurality of elements, on which the feedback indicating that the at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate has been provided, is included and (2) the constraint condition that the at least one of the plurality of elements, on which the feedback indicating that the at least one of the plurality of elements is inappropriate has been provided, is not included, (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts feedbacks, and records pieces of feedback information which indicate respective contents of the feedbacks; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor applies the constraint condition which corresponds to each of the pieces of feedback information that have been recorded, and regenerates the at least one hypothesis. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts feedbacks, and records pieces of feedback information which indicate respective contents of the feedbacks; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor applies the constraint condition which corresponds to each of the pieces of feedback information that have been recorded, and regenerates the at least one hypothesis. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts cancellation of at least one of the feedbacks which the at least one processor has already accepted; and (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor applies the constraint condition which corresponds to, among the pieces of feedback information that have been recorded, each of pieces of feedback information other than a piece of feedback information corresponding to the at least one of the feedbacks of which the cancellation has been accepted, and regenerates the at least one hypothesis. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts cancellation of at least one of the feedbacks which the at least one processor has already accepted; and (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor applies the constraint condition which corresponds to, among the pieces of feedback information that have been recorded, each of pieces of feedback information other than a piece of feedback information corresponding to the at least one of the feedbacks of which the cancellation has been accepted, and regenerates the at least one hypothesis. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts a feedback on an overall quality of at least one of the plurality of hypotheses, and records the at least one of the plurality of hypotheses and a piece of information which indicates a content of the feedback in association with each other. (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts a feedback on an overall quality of at least one of the plurality of hypotheses, and records the at least one of the plurality of hypotheses and a piece of information which indicates a content of the feedback in association with each other. (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GERKEN (US 20170032262 A1) in view of VANDERHAEGEN (“A multi-viewpoint system to support abductive reasoning”) and BAGCHI (US 20120301864 A1), hereafter GERKEN, VANDERHAEGEN, and BAGCHI, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1:
GERKEN teaches:
An information processing device comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: (GERKEN [0149] teaches: "An exemplary system, shown in FIG. 7, for implementing the invention a general purpose computing device 700 such as the form of a conventional personal computer, a personal communication device or the like, including a processing unit 710, a system memory 715, and a system bus that communicatively joins various system components, including the system memory 715 to the processing unit (i.e., information processing device)." GERKEN [0153] teaches: "Alternatively, the programming code may be embodied in the memory of the device and accessed by a microprocessor (i.e., comprising at least one processor) using an internal bus.")
a hypothesis generation process comprising generating, by abductive inference, a plurality of hypotheses that differ from each other; (GERKEN [0026] teaches: "The present invention uses abductive reasoning (i.e., a hypothesis generation process comprising generating, by abductive inference) to infer the best explanation or hypothesis for a set of observations." GERKEN [0079] teaches: "The investigation of the murder 415 can be approached by examining the location 435, the suspect 455 or the weapon 445. There is no indication that any of these branches is more favorable than the other and each may, and indeed will, lead to multiple hypotheses (i.e., a plurality of hypotheses)." GERKEN [0070] teaches: “Internally, the present invention uses a hyper-tree structure to organize evidence (observation data matched against a model), where each path through the hyper-tree defines a unique hypothesis (i.e., hypotheses that differ from each other).”)
[…] the at least one processor […] (GERKEN [0149] teaches: "An exemplary system, shown in FIG. 7, for implementing the invention a general purpose computing device 700 such as the form of a conventional personal computer, a personal communication device or the like, including a processing unit 710, a system memory 715, and a system bus that communicatively joins various system components, including the system memory 715 to the processing unit." GERKEN [0153] teaches: "Alternatively, the programming code may be embodied in the memory of the device and accessed by a microprocessor using an internal bus.")
a hypothesis display process comprising causing a display device to display a plurality of elements making up each of the plurality of hypotheses that have been generated; (GERKEN [0063] teaches: "Hypothesis orchestration (i.e., a hypothesis display process) of the present invention uses an intuitive, graphical user interface (i.e., a display device) to accept an inquiry, build hypothesis model(s) each of which as evidence is found and collected define a plurality of hypotheses related to that inquiry that are thereafter evaluated using questions to continuously search for the evidence needed to formulate, score, and resolve each hypothesis. All of this is done while continuously dealing with the uncertainty caused by noisy, missing, inaccurate, and contradictory data." GERKEN [0079] teaches: "The graphical rendition (i.e., comprising causing a display device to display a plurality of elements) begins with a common node 410 that Mr. Boddy was killed. Thereafter the rendition branches into four different hypotheses (i.e., making up each of the plurality of hypotheses that have been generated) that addresses the inquiry of who killed Mr. Boddy.”)
in the hypothesis display process, the at least one processor causes the display device to display hypothesis graphs in each of the plurality of elements, which make up the each of the plurality of hypotheses, wherein a combination of the plurality of elements are expressed with use of nodes and at least one edge; (GERKEN [0079] teaches: "The graphical rendition (i.e., to display) begins with a common node 410 that Mr. Boddy was killed. Thereafter the rendition branches into four different hypotheses (i.e., hypothesis graphs in each of the plurality of elements) that addresses the inquiry of who killed Mr. Boddy. For example, the left most branch 460 represents the hypothesis that Mr. Boddy was killed in the library 430 with a gun 440 by Mrs. White 450." GERKEN [0084] teaches: "FIG. 5 is an expanded rendition of the hypothesis branch of FIG. 4 depicting the hypothesis 460 that Mr. Boddy was killed in the library 430 with a gun 440 by Mrs. White 450. Each node on the graph represents an event. Whether or not the event has occurred or has been observed is determined though abductive reasoning by examining various pieces of evidence 510")
GERKEN is not relied upon for teaching:
an acceptance process comprising accepting, from a user, a feedback on at least one of the plurality of elements that have been displayed,
in the hypothesis generation process, […] applying a constraint condition which varies depending on the feedback, and regenerating at least one hypothesis, wherein:
in the acceptance process, […] causes the display device to display a selection screen together with the hypothesis graphs,
the selection screen being configured to accept, from the user, a selection of a content of a feedback on at least one selected from a group consisting of: the nodes or the at least one edge in each of the hypothesis graphs;
and in the hypothesis generation process, […] updates the constraint condition in accordance with the content of the feedback selected on the selection screen,
and regenerates the at least one hypothesis by applying the updated constraint condition.
However, VANDERHAEGEN teaches: an acceptance process comprising accepting, from a user, a feedback on at least one of the plurality of elements that have been displayed, (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5355, section 3.1.] teaches: “Two additional actions are possible to navigate through the multi-viewpoint causality graphs (i.e., on at least one of the plurality of elements that have been displayed): SELECT or REJECT (Fig. 6). The SELECT function and the REJECT function, respectively, select and reject a particular part of a viewpoint or a graph (i.e., an acceptance process of accepting […] a feedback). Each modification in a viewpoint is propagated to all other viewpoints, which is done in the causal graphs that share final nodes.” VANDERHAEGEN [page 5358, section 3.2.] teaches: "The set of graphs contains about 500 causal links and 170 nodes. Given their size, a specific interface was developed in order to make the use of the viewpoints possible during the activities of diagnosis and trial-and-error testing, by activating or cancelling actions of SELECT or REJECT. The user interface (i.e., from a user) of our multi-viewpoint system presents the causality graphs by levels.")
in the hypothesis generation process, […] applying a constraint condition which varies depending on the feedback […] (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5349, Abstract] teaches: “The algorithms for managing these viewpoints and the set of events are related to hypothetical reasoning (i.e., hypothesis generation process), and they use several main functions to (1) select or reject certain events, (2) cancel or recover these events, and (3) manage the consistency of the viewpoints.” VANDERHAEGEN [page 5355, section 3.1.] teaches: "From the causal dependencies between events, several generic functions try to select potential suspected events from the initial list. These selected events are on a base called BE, which lists the possible suspected events selected. For each element
C
i
from INITIAL_BE, a mask, denoted MASK (
C
i
), contains the actions of the viewpoints that justify the rejection of
C
i
in BE. When this mask is empty, then
C
i
appears in BE. Initially, before generating SELECT or REJECT functions for the viewpoints, BE is equal to INITIAL_BE." Examiner’s note: Under broadest reasonable interpretation, applying a constraint condition can be interpreted as MASK (
C
i
), which keeps track of SELECT and REJECT functions (i.e., which varies depending on the feedback) applied by the user to the hypothesis event.)
in the acceptance process, […] causes the display device to display a selection screen together with the hypothesis graphs, (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5358, section 3.2. Application to phone troubleshooting] teaches: “The set of graphs contains about 500 causal links and 170 nodes. Given their size, a specific interface was developed in order to make the use of the viewpoints possible during the activities of diagnosis and trial-and-error testing, by activating or cancelling actions of SELECT or REJECT. The user interface of our multi-viewpoint system presents the causality graphs by levels. Once the operator decides to select a node (i.e., in the acceptance process), all successors of this node are displayed on the screen (i.e., causes the display device to display), thus replacing the current level. In addition, the number of failures covered by each node is displayed. This shows the users which nodes are most relevant and helps guide their search for a diagnosis. This information is updated on all viewpoints each time the user intervenes.” Examiner’s note: the causality graphs are presented to the user via the user interface, and the user interface allows the user to make SELECT or REJECT actions on the graphs. Under BRI, display a selection screen together with the hypothesis graphs can be interpreted as the causality graphs being presented along with the options users can choose from to make updates to the graphs.)
the selection screen being configured to accept, from the user, a selection of a content of a feedback on at least one selected from a group consisting of: the nodes or the at least one edge in each of the hypothesis graphs; (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5355, section 3.1.] teaches: “Two additional actions are possible to navigate through the multi-viewpoint causality graphs: SELECT or REJECT (Fig. 6). The SELECT function and the REJECT function, respectively, select and reject a particular part of a viewpoint or a graph. Each modification in a viewpoint is propagated to all other viewpoints, which is done in the causal graphs that share final nodes. […] To reject node A, all the failures covered by A are rejected. Rejecting these failures is propagated to other nodes, and the nodes that cover all the failures are rejected.” VANDERHAEGEN [page 5358, section 3.2. Application to phone troubleshooting] teaches: “The set of graphs contains about 500 causal links and 170 nodes. Given their size, a specific interface was developed in order to make the use of the viewpoints possible during the activities of diagnosis and trial-and-error testing, by activating or cancelling actions of SELECT or REJECT (i.e., configured to accept, from the user, selection of a content of a feedback). The user interface of our multi-viewpoint system presents the causality graphs by levels. Once the operator decides to select a node (i.e., feedback on at least one selected from a group consisting of: the nodes […] in each of the hypothesis graphs), all successors of this node are displayed on the screen (i.e., the selection screen being configured to accept), thus replacing the current level. In addition, the number of failures covered by each node is displayed. This shows the users which nodes are most relevant and helps guide their search for a diagnosis. This information is updated on all viewpoints each time the user intervenes.”)
and in the hypothesis generation process, […] updates the constraint condition in accordance with the content of the feedback selected on the selection screen, […] (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5349, Abstract] teaches: “The algorithms for managing these viewpoints and the set of events are related to hypothetical reasoning (i.e., hypothesis generation process), and they use several main functions to (1) select or reject certain events, (2) cancel or recover these events, and (3) manage the consistency of the viewpoints.” VANDERHAEGEN [page 5355, section 3.1. General formalism] teaches: “For each element
C
i
from INITIAL_BE, a mask, denoted MASK (
C
i
), contains the actions of the viewpoints that justify the rejection of
C
i
in BE.” VANDERHAEGEN [page 5358, section 3.2. Application to phone troubleshooting] teaches: “The set of graphs contains about 500 causal links and 170 nodes. Given their size, a specific interface was developed in order to make the use of the viewpoints possible during the activities of diagnosis and trial-and-error testing, by activating or cancelling actions of SELECT or REJECT. The user interface of our multi-viewpoint system presents the causality graphs by levels. Once the operator decides to select a node, all successors of this node are displayed on the screen, thus replacing the current level. In addition, the number of failures covered by each node is displayed. This shows the users which nodes are most relevant and helps guide their search for a diagnosis. This information is updated on all viewpoints each time the user intervenes (i.e., updates the constraint condition in accordance with the content of the feedback selected on the selection screen).” Examiner’s note: Under broadest reasonable interpretation, updates the constraint condition can be interpreted as MASK (
C
i
), which keeps track of SELECT and REJECT functions applied by the user to the hypothesis event.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of GERKEN and VANDERHAEGEN before them, to include VANDERHAEGEN’s functions for modifying multi-viewpoint causality graphs in GERKEN’s hypotheses orchestration method. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to benefit from an interactive diagnosis support system so that when the known knowledge is not enough to solve a problem, the user can make a hypothesis and the support system must be able to determine what information is most relevant in order to propose the solution (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5354, section 3]).
GERKEN in view of VANDERHAEGEN is not relied upon for teaching, but BAGCHI teaches: […] and regenerating at least one hypothesis, […] (BAGCHI [0046] teaches: "In contrast to traditional Expert Systems, DeepQA exploits natural language processing (NLP) and a variety of search techniques to analyze unstructured information to generate likely candidate answers in hypothesis generation (analogous to forward chaining)." BAGCHI [0150] teaches: "Then, the method automatically generates at least one updated answer based on the updated factors and updated information from the sources using the computerized device.")
[…] and regenerates the at least one hypothesis by applying the updated constraint condition. (BAGCHI [0046] teaches: "In contrast to traditional Expert Systems, DeepQA exploits natural language processing (NLP) and a variety of search techniques to analyze unstructured information to generate likely candidate answers in hypothesis generation (analogous to forward chaining)." BAGCHI [0150] teaches: "Then, the method automatically generates at least one updated answer based on the updated factors and updated information from the sources using the computerized device.")
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of GERKEN, VANDERHAEGEN, and BAGCHI before them, to include BAGCHI’s automatic generation of updated answers based on updated factors and information in GERKEN and VANDERHAEGEN’s hypotheses orchestration method. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide users access to a question-answering system that can contextualize a question by considering a set of problem-specific sources, hypothesize about answers to a question by drawing from a huge set of structured and unstructured sources, give confidences regarding those answers, divide those confidences into contributions from evidence falling into different dimensions, and deliver the evidence sources (BAGCHI [0042]).
Regarding Claim 2:
GERKEN in view of VANDERHAEGEN and BAGCHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. BAGCHI further teaches:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts, by detecting an input operation from the user, at least one of (i) a feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate or (ii) a feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is inappropriate; (BAGCHI [0080] teaches: "The clinical decision support system helps a practitioner overcome cognitive errors discussed above by explaining how a certain hypothesis was generated and what factors were considered in its evaluation." BAGCHI [0015] teaches: "The method can further receive an indication of which of the factors should be ignored (i.e., a feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is inappropriate) and which of the factors should be considered (i.e., a feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate) from the user through the user interface (i.e., accepts, by detecting an input operation from the user)." BAGCHI [0157-0159] teaches the processor for implementing the information handling computer system.)
in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor applies at least one of (1) the constraint condition that the at least one of the plurality of elements, on which the feedback indicating that the at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate has been provided, is included and (2) the constraint condition that the at least one of the plurality of elements, on which the feedback indicating that the at least one of the plurality of elements is inappropriate has been provided, is not included, […] (BAGCHI [0046] teaches: "In contrast to traditional Expert Systems, DeepQA exploits natural language processing (NLP) and a variety of search techniques to analyze unstructured information to generate likely candidate answers in hypothesis generation (analogous to forward chaining)." BAGCHI [0148] teaches: "In response to the questions, in item 508 the method automatically generates answers to the questions by referring to the factors that should be considered and to sources within the computerized storage medium using the computerized device. The method automatically calculates confidence measures of each of the answers using the computerized device in item 510. The method then displays the questions, the answers, and the confidence measures on the user interface in item 512. The method can further maintain a history of the questions, the answers, and the confidence measures, as shown in item 514.")
[…] and regenerates the at least one hypothesis. (BAGCHI [0150] teaches: "Then, the method automatically generates at least one updated answer based on the updated factors and updated information from the sources using the computerized device.")
Regarding Claim 3:
GERKEN in view of VANDERHAEGEN and BAGCHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. BAGCHI further teaches:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts feedbacks, and records pieces of feedback information which indicate respective contents of the feedbacks; (BAGCHI [0126] teaches: "’Scratchpad factors’ are factors being considered (i.e., records pieces of feedback information which indicate respective contents of the feedback) and affect the answers Watson hypothesizes for a question. They act as normal inputs but are specific to a user as well as the problem. The UI allows for management of a user's scratchpad factors for a particular problem.")
in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor applies the constraint condition which corresponds to each of the pieces of feedback information that have been recorded, […] (BAGCHI [0148] teaches: "In response to the questions, in item 508 the method automatically generates answers to the questions by referring to the factors that should be considered and to sources within the computerized storage medium using the computerized device.")
[…] and regenerates the at least one hypothesis. (BAGCHI [0150] teaches: "Then, the method automatically generates at least one updated answer based on the updated factors and updated information from the sources using the computerized device.")
Regarding Claim 4:
GERKEN in view of VANDERHAEGEN and BAGCHI teaches the elements of claim 3 as outlined above. VANDERHAEGEN further teaches:
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts cancellation of at least one of the feedbacks which the at least one processor has already accepted; (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5355, section 3.1] teaches: "To allow hypothetical reasoning, it is also necessary to consider the cancellation of the SELECT and REJECT functions, denoted respectively CANCEL_SELECT and CANCEL_REJECT (Fig. 7). After such a cancellation, if the mask of an element
C
i
is empty, then
C
i
reappears in BE. A SELECT action or an REJECT action can be cancelled if the action was done before (i.e., the SELECT action or the REJECT action exists on the MASK).")
in the hypothesis generation process, the at least one processor applies the constraint condition which corresponds to, among the pieces of feedback information that have been recorded, each of pieces of feedback information other than a piece of feedback information corresponding to the at least one of the feedbacks of which the cancellation has been accepted […] (VANDERHAEGEN [page 5349, Abstract] teaches: “The algorithms for managing these viewpoints and the set of events are related to hypothetical reasoning (i.e., hypothesis generation process), and they use several main functions to (1) select or reject certain events, (2) cancel or recover these events, and (3) manage the consistency of the viewpoints.” VANDERHAEGEN [page 5355, section 3.1] teaches: "To allow hypothetical reasoning, it is also necessary to consider the cancellation of the SELECT and REJECT functions, denoted respectively CANCEL_SELECT and CANCEL_REJECT (Fig. 7). After such a cancellation, if the mask of an element
C
i
is empty, then
C
i
reappears in BE. A SELECT action or an REJECT action can be cancelled if the action was done before (i.e., the SELECT action or the REJECT action exists on the MASK).")
BAGCHI teaches: […] and regenerates the at least one hypothesis. (BAGCHI [0150] teaches: "Then, the method automatically generates at least one updated answer based on the updated factors and updated information from the sources using the computerized device.")
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding Claim 9:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale. GERKEN further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which a program for causing a computer to function as an information processing device is recorded, the program causing the computer to carry out: (GERKEN [0014] teaches: “Yet another embodiment of the Hypothesis Orchestration System is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by a machine, in which the program of instructions (“program”) comprises program codes for hypothesis orchestration.”)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GERKEN in view of VANDERHAEGEN and BAGCHI as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of SCHNEIDER (DE 102018133674 A1), hereafter SCHNEIDER.
Regarding Claim 6:
GERKEN in view of VANDERHAEGEN and BAGCHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. GERKEN in view of VANDERHAEGEN and BAGCHI is not relied upon for teaching, but SCHNEIDER teaches:
wherein in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts a feedback on an overall quality of at least one of the plurality of hypotheses, and records the at least one of the plurality of hypotheses and a piece of information which indicates a content of the feedback in association with each other. (SCHNEIDER [0068] teaches: "Furthermore, as described above, evaluation unit 7 can receive explicit user feedback on issued hypotheses." SCHNEIDER [0094] teaches: “In step S4, user input is recorded along with the output of the hypothesis.” SCHNEIDER [0044] teaches: “Furthermore, the invention relates to a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one computer, cause it to execute the method according to the invention.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of GERKEN, VANDERHAEGEN, BAGCHI, and SCHNEIDER before them, to include SCHNEIDER’s user hypotheses feedback in GERKEN, VANDERHAEGEN, and BAGCHI’s hypotheses orchestration method. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that a user's possible preferences can become confirmed facts, which increases user acceptance of the adaptive procedure because the procedure is better adapted to the user, and to avoid the disadvantages of methods that rely solely on machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithms (SCHNEIDER [0027]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvaro S Laham Bauzo whose telephone number is (571) 272-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 11:00 AM | 1:00 PM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Usmaan Saeed, can be reached on (571) 272-4046. 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.
/A.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights