CTNF 18/286,386 CTNF 90432 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 7 , Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, the claim is directed to a method/process. Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The limitations of: (b) generating a plurality of hypotheses with reference to the background knowledge information and the query information; (mental evaluation, a human can look at data and come up with hypotheses) (c) constructing a constraint set by listing some of a plurality of logical constraints to be satisfied between a plurality of elements constituting each of the plurality of hypotheses; (mental evaluation, a human can look at the data and come up with constraints mentally) (d) retrieving any one of the plurality of hypotheses as a candidate solution hypothesis with reference to the constraint set; (mental evaluation, looking at the constraints, a human can look at candidates and pick (retrieve) one based on criteria) (e) determining whether the candidate solution hypothesis satisfies a logical constraint which is among logical constraints to be satisfied between elements constituting the candidate solution hypothesis and which is not included in the constraint set; and ( Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The limitations of: (a) acquiring background knowledge information which represents background knowledge by at least one logical formula and query information which represents an observed fact by at least one logical formula; (insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)) f) outputting the candidate solution hypothesis as a solution hypothesis in a case where the candidate solution hypothesis satisfies the logical constraint which is not included in the constraint set, (insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. transmission of data MPEP 2106.05(g)) (a) to (f) being carried out by an abductive reasoning apparatus (generic hardware to carry out the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (a) acquiring background knowledge information which represents background knowledge by at least one logical formula and query information which represents an observed fact by at least one logical formula; (insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g), 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) f) outputting the candidate solution hypothesis as a solution hypothesis in a case where the candidate solution hypothesis satisfies the logical constraint which is not included in the constraint set, (insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. transmission of data MPEP 2106.05(g), 106.05(d)(II)(i)) (a) to (f) being carried out by an abductive reasoning apparatus (generic hardware to carry out the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)) Note independent claims 1 and 8 recite the same substantial subject matter as independent claim 7, only differing in embodiments. The differences in embodiments, a apparatus and computer-readable medium do not meaningfully change the above analysis and therefore the claims are subject to the same rejection. Dependent claim 2 recites adding the constraint and carrying out the process, mental evaluation of using the data to make a judgement. Dependent claim 3 recites excluding a candidate and retrieving a new one, mental evaluation of using the data and making a judgement to use it or not. Dependent claim 4 recites constructing a constraint set, mental evaluation of data and making a decision. Dependent claim 5 recites including a logical constraint, “applying” the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claim 6 recites including a order relation, “applying” the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul, Gabriele. "Approaches to abductive reasoning: an overview." Artificial intelligence review 7.2 Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8 , Paul teaches “an abductive reasoning apparatus: comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: an acquisition process for acquiring background knowledge information which represents background knowledge by at least one logical formula” (pg. 9 PNG media_image1.png 270 760 media_image1.png Greyscale and “In addition, the knowledge about causal relation- ships that is used for finding abductive explanations is represented implicitly in theory 32. The implication in 3- has to be interpreted in two different ways corresponding to actual use, i.e., in sentences containing abducible predicates implication is seen as a kind of cause-effect relationship, whereas otherwise the material implication is meant.”) “and query information which represents an observed fact by at least one logical formula” (pg. 2 PNG media_image2.png 184 750 media_image2.png Greyscale facts to be explained i.e. observed fact) ; “a generation process for generating a plurality of hypotheses with reference to the background knowledge information and the query information” (pg. 2 “First, we will give a formal description of the abductive task that determines the underlying model. We discuss the set-cover-based approach, the logic-based approach and the knowledge-level approach. Methods for hypothesis generation are presented in section 3 . In particular, we treat generation by resolution and generation by an Assumption-based Truth Maintenance System. As these methods produce sets of feasible hypotheses, it is convenient to further restrict these sets by applying heuristics”) ; “a construction process for constructing a constraint set by listing some of a plurality of logical constraints to be satisfied between a plurality of elements constituting each of the plurality of hypotheses” (pg. 11 PNG media_image3.png 554 852 media_image3.png Greyscale which shows uses constraints and seeing if hypothesis are satisfied by them) ; “a retrieval process for retrieving any one of the plurality of hypotheses as a candidate solution hypothesis with reference to the constraint set” (pg. 4 §2.1 “Since hypotheses are constructed using a set of previously known candidates, this approach is also called hypothesis assembly.” i.e. retrieving the hypothesis) ; “a determination process for determining whether the candidate solution hypothesis satisfies a logical constraint which is among logical constraints to be satisfied between elements constituting the candidate solution hypothesis and which is not included in the constraint set” (pg. 9 PNG media_image4.png 288 830 media_image4.png Greyscale the conditions must be satisfied) ; and “an output process for outputting the candidate solution hypothesis as a solution hypothesis in a case where the candidate solution hypothesis satisfies the logical constraint which is not included in the constraint set” (pg. 11 PNG media_image5.png 454 952 media_image5.png Greyscale i.e. coming up/generation a solution) Note independent claims 7 and 8 recite the same substantial subject matter as independent claim 1, only differing in embodiment. The differences in embodiment, a method and computer-readable medium are obvious variations of another and would be inherent to any computing system such as the one of Paul. Regarding claim 2 , Paul teaches “wherein in a case where the candidate solution hypothesis does not satisfy the logical constraint which is not included in the constraint set, in the determination process, the at least one processor adds the logical constraint to the constraint set and carries out the retrieval process” (pg. 11 PNG media_image6.png 260 786 media_image6.png Greyscale adding constraints) Regarding claim 3 , Paul teaches “wherein in the retrieval, process, the at least one processor excludes the candidate solution hypothesis that does not satisfy the logical constraint which is not included in the constraint set, and retrieves a new candidate solution hypothesis with reference to the constraint set” (pg. 9 PNG media_image4.png 288 830 media_image4.png Greyscale ) Regarding claim 4 , Paul teaches “wherein assuming that a logical constraint that occurs for each combination of the plurality of elements constituting each of the plurality of hypotheses is to be subjected to determination, in the construction, process, the at least one processor constructs the constraint set by listing logical constraints which are among the plurality of logical constraints and which are not to be subjected to determination” (pg. 11 PNG media_image6.png 260 786 media_image6.png Greyscale ) Regarding claim 5 , Paul teaches “wherein the logical constraint that is to be subjected to determination includes a logical constraint on an equivalence relation between the plurality of elements” (pg. 9 PNG media_image7.png 300 876 media_image7.png Greyscale ) Regarding claim 6 , Paul teaches “wherein the logical constraint that is to be subjected to determination includes a logical constraint on an order relation between the plurality of elements” (pg. 25 PNG media_image8.png 634 826 media_image8.png Greyscale shows the order relation) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Carter et al. US 20170/220554 Gerken et al. US 2017/0032262 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN W FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-4623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST. 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, MIRANDA HUANG can be reached at (571)270-7092. 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. KEVIN W FIGUEROA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2124 /Kevin W Figueroa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 2 Art Unit: 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 3 Art Unit: 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 4 Art Unit: 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 5 Art Unit: 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 6 Art Unit: 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 7 Art Unit: 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 8 Art Unit: 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 9 Art Unit: 2124 Application/Control Number: 18/286,386 Page 10 Art Unit: 2124
Prosecution Insights