DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2020/046862, filed on December 16, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on June 6, 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 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 2:
The claim recites “feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate / inappropriate”. However, neither the specification nor 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.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim recites "the group". However, the term lacks antecedent basis because "a group" was never introduced in either claim 5 or claim 1.
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 1-7 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 1-6 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 of […]
(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))
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 of […]
[…] 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 § MPEP2106.05(g).)
(Claims 1 and 9) a hypothesis display process of […]
[…] 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 § MPEP2106.05(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, and regenerating 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).)
(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).)
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 of […]
[…] 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 of […]
[…] 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, and regenerating 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).)
(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).)
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 and (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 at least one of (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(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. Therefore, 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. Therefore, 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. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5:
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 hypothesis display process, the at least one processor causes the display device to display hypothesis graphs in each of which the plurality of elements, which make up the each of the plurality of hypotheses, and a combination of the plurality of elements are expressed with use of nodes and at least one edge; and (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts a feedback on at least one selected from the group consisting of the nodes and the at least one edge in each of the hypothesis graphs. (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(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:
in the hypothesis display process, the at least one processor causes the display device to display hypothesis graphs in each of which the plurality of elements, which make up the each of the plurality of hypotheses, and a combination of the plurality of elements are expressed with use of nodes and at least one edge; and (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)
in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts a feedback on at least one selected from the group consisting of the nodes and the at least one edge in each of 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)(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. Therefore, 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 § MPEP2106.05(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. Therefore, 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 1-5, 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 of 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 of 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).”)
a hypothesis display process of 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., of 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.)
GERKEN is not relied upon for teaching, but VANDERHAEGEN teaches: an acceptance process of 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 eat 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, the at least one processor 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.)
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.")
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 at least one of (i) a feedback indicating that at least one of the plurality of elements is appropriate and (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." 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 5:
GERKEN in view of VANDERHAEGEN and BAGCHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. GERKEN further teaches:
in the hypothesis display process, the at least one processor causes the display device to display hypothesis graphs in each of which the plurality of elements, which make up the each of the plurality of hypotheses, and a combination of the plurality of elements are expressed with use of nodes and at least one edge; (GERKEN [0079] teaches: "The graphical rendition begins with a common node 410 that Mr. Boddy was killed. Thereafter the rendition branches into four different hypotheses 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")
VANDERHAEGEN further teaches: in the acceptance process, the at least one processor accepts a feedback on at least one selected from the group consisting of the nodes and 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.”)
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 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
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