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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 11/20/2025, amending claim 1, 7, and 13.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 07/20/2023, and 06/06/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 103, will be maintained.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments date 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 8-9 of the remarks):
The processes defined in claims 1, 7, and 13 are not merely mental processes or organizing human activity. The claimed operations require a computer to perform specific structural graph-based computations, including difference detection at the node/edge level and priority propagation along graph links. Such processing is a technical improvement to the functioning of a computer-implemented AI-risk- analysis system, enabling an automated and significantly more efficient re-analysis of AI ethics risks when the system configuration changes.
This technical solution is expressly supported by the Specification in, for example, paragraphs [0091-92, 102] that describe difference detection between graph-structured representations of AI system configurations and the calculation of priorities based on such differences. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, and even if they were, they integrate the alleged exception into a practical application and recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recite the additional limitation a graph structure, a non-transitory, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, displayed unit, a memory, and a processor are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer; October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “machine learning models” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. “[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Independent claims do not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. The claims include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a graph structure, a non-transitory, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, displayed unit, a memory, and a processor..
Examiner asserts that a graph structure, a non-transitory, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, displayed unit, a memory, and a processor are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues (Pages 10-11 of the remarks):
Dey appears to merely disclose generating a "third graph illustrating first order differences between the first interactions and the second interactions." These "first order differences" represent tempora/ differences in interaction data, not graph structural differences in AI system architectures. Dey does not appear to disclose:
comparing a graph structure of a first plurality of relationship information pieces with a second plurality of relationship information pieces, the graph structures representing configurations of a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system and a second AI system, respectively; detecting, as a difference from the second graph structure, a node present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or an edge present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or a node or an edge having a change in an input number or an output number; determining priorities of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening a priority of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges
linked thereto. … Thus, Park does not appear to disclose: comparing a graph structure of … linked thereto. …. Laskawiec does not appear to disclose: comparing a graph structure … linked thereto.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Also, Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Dey disclose comparing a graph structure (Dey Fig. 4A [0041], “compares the second graph to the first graph”) a first plurality of relationship information pieces with a second plurality of relationship information pieces, (Dey fig. 4A, 404 “generate first graph” … 420 “generate second graph” [0041]) the graph structures representing configurations of a first [[Artificial Intelligence (AI)]] system (Dey [0041], “retrieves first data associated with first interactions between users associated with a plurality of social networks. In step 404, the computing system generates (i.e., based on the first data) a first graph illustrating the first interactions between the users. In step 408, the computing system identifies a group of users (i.e., of the users of step 402). The group of users comprises first targeted users associated with a first marketing plan associated with a first social network of the plurality of social networks. In step 410, the computing system enables the first marketing plan with respect to the users”.) and of a second [[AI system]], respectively; (Dey [0041], “In step 418, the computing system retrieves second data associated with second interactions between the users. In step 420, the computing system generates (i.e., based on the second data) a second graph illustrating the second interactions between the user. In step 424, the computing system compares the second graph to the first graph”.)
detecting, as a difference from the second graph structure, a node present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or an edge present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or a node or an edge having a change in an input number or an output number; (EN: here only one option is required. EN: see Dey figure 2 [0020-0023], [0025] which disclose two different graph structure wherein the first graph structure (includes a node and/or edge) but absent in the second graph structure.)
determining [[priorities]] of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening [[a priority]] of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto; and outputting, as a checklist of the first [[AI system]], one or more check items, to a display unit, selected in accordance with the determined [[priorities]] from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. (Dey [0041], “the computing system generates a third graph illustrating first order differences between the first interactions and the second interactions with respect to the group of users. In step 428, the computing system analyzes the third graph and stores results of the analysis. In step 430, the computing system enabling a second marketing plan ( differing from the first marketing plan) with respect to the users”.)
Dey disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose a first …. a second AI system; determining priorities of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening a priority of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto;
However, Park teaches the following limitations:
the graph structures representing configurations of a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system and of a second AI system, respectively; (Park pages 2-3, “receive and mount an AI module from the AI developer terminal 300, or may implant the received AI module into the AI operating device 100. In particular, the evaluation server device 200 of the present invention may perform ethics evaluation on the AI module mounted on the AI operating device 100 by the AI developer terminal 300. In this regard, the evaluation server device 200 may collect information related to an AI developer who has produced an AI module. For example, the evaluation server device 200 may collect information related to an AI developer who has produced an AI module. For example, the evaluation server device 200 may search for information on data leakage, forgery or violation of various laws by the AI module in relation to the AI developer. The evaluation server device 200 may form a communication channel with the AI operating device 100 to collect processed data while providing a service according to the AI module operation to a user. The evaluation server device 200 may calculate an ethics evaluation result for a corresponding AI module based on whether there is leakage or forgery in the data processing process. The evaluation server device 200 may include at least a part of the configuration as shown in FIG. 2”.)
determining [[priorities]] of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening [[a priority]] of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto; and outputting, as a checklist of the first AI system, one or more check items, to a display unit, selected in accordance with the determined [[priorities]] from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. (Park pages 2-3, “providing a checklist and AI ethics assessment … that enable the proper operation of the ethics regulation and the ethics of the AI .. providing a usage recommendation …. Item checklist”. Also, see page 9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Park, in order to determine a checklist items based on the comparison (Park Pages 2-3). This will check if there is an ethical violation of the AI. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey and Park, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Dey in view of Park disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose determining [[priorities]] of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening [[a priority]] of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto;
However, Laskawiec teaches the following limitations:
determining priorities of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening a priority of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto; and outputting, as a checklist of the first AI system, one or more check items, to a display unit, selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. (Laskawiec [0065], “the method 100 comprises prioritizing, 106, the naming rules, i.e. defining a sequence of applying them or defining an order of the rules. The periodization shall be dependent on their importance for entity identification. [0070], “system lists all applicable naming rules (i.e., or name words based on attributes that are not null attribute values). The database engine then determines each naming rule value is a hash value based on concatenated attributes' values”. Fig. 6 [0078] “a higher priority”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Laskawiec, in order to priorities a plurality of relationship information pieces and output a list of check items based on difference data (Laskawiec). This will check if there is an ethical violation of the AI. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey, Park and Laskawiec, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-6 are directed toward a non-transitory (machine).
Claims 7-12 are directed toward a method (process)
Claims 13-18 are directed toward an apparatus (machine)
Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-18 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 7, and 13 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a machine learning program executable by one or more computers, the machine learning program:
comparing a graph structure a first plurality of relationship information pieces with a second plurality of relationship information pieces, the graph structures representing configurations of a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system and a second AI system respectively;
detecting, as a difference from the second graph structure, a node present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or an edge present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or a node or an edge having a change in an input number or an output number;
determining priorities of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening a priority of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto; and
outputting, as a checklist of the first AI system, one or more check items, to a displayed unit, selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes.
The Applicant's Specification titled "COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING STORED THEREIN MACHINE LEARNING PROGRAM, MACHINE LEARNING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes" (Spec. [0002-0003]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to the abstract idea of outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions and (ii) fundamental economic principles or practices. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because the independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the abstract idea of outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. Also, pertain to "hedging, insurance, mitigating risk" expressly categorized under fundamental economic principles or practices. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly Claims 8 and 14) wherein the comparing includes comparing a first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces with a second graph structure of the second plurality of relationship information pieces, and
the determining includes heightening a priority of a relationship information piece detected to have a difference from the second plurality of relationship information piece among the first plurality of relationship information.
claim 3 (Similarly Claims 9 and 15) wherein the determining includes detecting, in the first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces, a node being included in the first AI system and not being included in the second AI system, and an edge being included in the first AI system and not being included in the second AI system and heightening priorities of the node and the edge.
claim 4 (Similarly Claims 10 and 16) wherein the determining further includes detecting, as a difference from the second plurality of relationship information pieces, a node that undergoes a change of an output number or an input number and an edge linked to the node in the first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces, and heightening priorities of the node and the edge.
claim 5 (Similarly Claims 11 and 17) wherein the determining further includes detecting, as the difference from the second plurality of relationship information pieces, a subsequent node and a subsequent edge linked to the node that undergoes the change, and heightening priorities of the node and the edge.
claim 6 (Similarly Claims 12 and 18) wherein the determining includes heightening priorities of the node and the edge by setting higher priorities to a node and an edge each having a less hop number from the node that undergoes the change among subsequent nodes and subsequent edges linked to an edge linked to the node that undergoes the change.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-18 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a machine learning program executable by one or more computers, the machine learning program: a graph structure, a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system a second AI system; displayed unit
Claim 7. a machine learning, a graph structure, a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system a second AI system; displayed unit
Claim 13. An information processing apparatus comprising: a graph structure, a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system a second AI system; displayed unit
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a non-transitory, a graph structure, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, displayed unit, a memory, and a processor. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. [figure 8] of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 7, and 18 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The additional elements of a “machine learning and artificial intelligence”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “machine learning and artificial intelligence” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention directed to outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively, for example, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, and 13, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, 7, and 13. a non-transitory, a graph structure, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, a memory, displayed unit, and a processor. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes.
Claims 1-18 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
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, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey et al. US 2011/0173046 (hereinafter Dey) in view of Jungho Park KR 102248705 (hereinafter Park) in view of Laskawiec et al. US 2021/0311917 (hereinafter Laskawiec).
Regarding Claim 1:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a machine learning program executable by one or more computers, the machine learning program: (Dey [0043])
comparing a graph structure (Dey Fig. 4A [0041], “compares the second graph to the first graph”) a first plurality of relationship information pieces with a second plurality of relationship information pieces, (Dey fig. 4A, 404 “generate first graph” … 420 “generate second graph” [0041]) the graph structures representing configurations of a first [[Artificial Intelligence (AI)]] system (Dey [0041], “retrieves first data associated with first interactions between users associated with a plurality of social networks. In step 404, the computing system generates (i.e., based on the first data) a first graph illustrating the first interactions between the users. In step 408, the computing system identifies a group of users (i.e., of the users of step 402). The group of users comprises first targeted users associated with a first marketing plan associated with a first social network of the plurality of social networks. In step 410, the computing system enables the first marketing plan with respect to the users”.) and of a second [[AI system]], respectively; (Dey [0041], “In step 418, the computing system retrieves second data associated with second interactions between the users. In step 420, the computing system generates (i.e., based on the second data) a second graph illustrating the second interactions between the user. In step 424, the computing system compares the second graph to the first graph”.)
detecting, as a difference from the second graph structure, a node present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or an edge present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or a node or an edge having a change in an input number or an output number; (EN: here only one option is required. EN: see Dey figure 2 [0020-0023], [0025] which disclose two different graph structure wherein the first graph structure (includes a node and/or edge) but absent in the second graph structure.)
determining [[priorities]] of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening [[a priority]] of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto; and outputting, as a checklist of the first [[AI system]], one or more check items, to a display unit, selected in accordance with the determined [[priorities]] from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. (Dey [0041], “the computing system generates a third graph illustrating first order differences between the first interactions and the second interactions with respect to the group of users. In step 428, the computing system analyzes the third graph and stores results of the analysis. In step 430, the computing system enabling a second marketing plan ( differing from the first marketing plan) with respect to the users”.)
Dey disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose a first …. a second AI system; determining priorities of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening a priority of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto;
However, Park teaches the following limitations:
the graph structures representing configurations of a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system and of a second AI system, respectively; (Park pages 2-3, “receive and mount an AI module from the AI developer terminal 300, or may implant the received AI module into the AI operating device 100. In particular, the evaluation server device 200 of the present invention may perform ethics evaluation on the AI module mounted on the AI operating device 100 by the AI developer terminal 300. In this regard, the evaluation server device 200 may collect information related to an AI developer who has produced an AI module. For example, the evaluation server device 200 may collect information related to an AI developer who has produced an AI module. For example, the evaluation server device 200 may search for information on data leakage, forgery or violation of various laws by the AI module in relation to the AI developer. The evaluation server device 200 may form a communication channel with the AI operating device 100 to collect processed data while providing a service according to the AI module operation to a user. The evaluation server device 200 may calculate an ethics evaluation result for a corresponding AI module based on whether there is leakage or forgery in the data processing process. The evaluation server device 200 may include at least a part of the configuration as shown in FIG. 2”.)
determining [[priorities]] of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening [[a priority]] of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto; and outputting, as a checklist of the first AI system, one or more check items, to a display unit, selected in accordance with the determined [[priorities]] from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. (Park pages 2-3, “providing a checklist and AI ethics assessment … that enable the proper operation of the ethics regulation and the ethics of the AI .. providing a usage recommendation …. Item checklist”. Also, see page 9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Park, in order to determine a checklist items based on the comparison (Park Pages 2-3). This will check if there is an ethical violation of the AI. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey and Park, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Dey in view of Park disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose determining [[priorities]] of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening [[a priority]] of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto;
However, Laskawiec teaches the following limitations:
determining priorities of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening a priority of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto; and outputting, as a checklist of the first AI system, one or more check items, to a display unit, selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. (Laskawiec [0065], “the method 100 comprises prioritizing, 106, the naming rules, i.e. defining a sequence of applying them or defining an order of the rules. The periodization shall be dependent on their importance for entity identification. [0070], “system lists all applicable naming rules (i.e., or name words based on attributes that are not null attribute values). The database engine then determines each naming rule value is a hash value based on concatenated attributes' values”. Fig. 6 [0078] “a higher priority”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Laskawiec, in order to priorities a plurality of relationship information pieces and output a list of check items based on difference data (Laskawiec). This will check if there is an ethical violation of the AI. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey, Park and Laskawiec, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 2:
Dey in view of Park in view of Laskawiec disclose the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1,
Dey further teach wherein the comparing includes comparing (Dey Fig. 4A [0041], “compares the second graph to the first graph”) a first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces with a second graph structure (Dey fig. 4A, 404 “generate first graph” … 420 “generate second graph” [0041]) of the second plurality of relationship information pieces, and (Dey [0041], “retrieves first data associated with first interactions between users associated with a plurality of social networks. In step 404, the computing system generates (i.e., based on the first data) a first graph illustrating the first interactions between the users. In step 408, the computing system identifies a group of users (i.e., of the users of step 402). The group of users comprises first targeted users associated with a first marketing plan associated with a first social network of the plurality of social networks. In step 410, the computing system enables the first marketing plan with respect to the users”.)
the determining includes [[heightening a priority]] of a relationship information piece detected to have a difference from the second plurality of relationship information piece among the first plurality of relationship information. (Dey [0041], “the computing system generates a third graph illustrating first order differences between the first interactions and the second interactions with respect to the group of users. In step 428, the computing system analyzes the third graph and stores results of the analysis. In step 430, the computing system enabling a second marketing plan ( differing from the first marketing plan) with respect to the users”.)
Dey disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose the determining includes heightening a priority of a relationship
However, Laskawiec teaches the following limitations:
the determining includes heightening a priority of a relationship information piece detected to have a difference from the second plurality of relationship information piece among the first plurality of relationship information. (Laskawiec [0065], “the method 100 comprises prioritizing, 106, the naming rules, i.e. defining a sequence of applying them or defining an order of the rules. The periodization shall be dependent on their importance for entity identification. [0070], “system lists all applicable naming rules (i.e., or name words based on attributes that are not null attribute values). The database engine then determines each naming rule value is a hash value based on concatenated attributes' values”. [0078] “a higher priority”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Laskawiec, in order to priorities a plurality of relationship information pieces and output a list of check items based on difference data (Laskawiec). This will check if there is an ethical violation of the AI. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey, Park and Laskawiec, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 3:
Dey in view of Park in view of Laskawiec disclose the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 2,
Dey further teach wherein the determining includes detecting, in the first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces, a node being included in the first AI system and not being included in the second AI system, and an edge being included in the first AI system and not being included in the second AI system and [[heightening priorities]] of the node and the edge. (Dey fig. 2 disclose that one graph structure include a node/edge not being included in the other graph structure. See [0024-0025], “edges … edges/lines between nodes”.)
Dey fails to disclose, however, Laskawiec teaches the following limitation:
heightening priorities of the node and the edge. (Laskawiec [0065], “the method 100 comprises prioritizing, 106, the naming rules, i.e. defining a sequence of applying them or defining an order of the rules. The periodization shall be dependent on their importance for entity identification. [0070], “system lists all applicable naming rules (i.e., or name words based on attributes that are not null attribute values). The database engine then determines each naming rule value is a hash value based on concatenated attributes' values”. Fig. 6 [0078] “a higher priority”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Laskawiec, in order to priorities a plurality of relationship information pieces and output a list of check items based on difference data (Laskawiec). This will check if there is an ethical violation of the AI. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey, Park and Laskawiec, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 4:
Dey in view of Park in view of Laskawiec disclose the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 3,
Dey further teach wherein the determining further includes detecting, as a difference from the second plurality of relationship information pieces, a node that undergoes a change of an output number or an input number and an edge linked to the node in the first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces, and [[heightening priorities]] of the node and the edge. (Dey fig. 2 [0024-0025], “calculate a difference graph .. social network graphs .. denoting a change … differential graphic … edges … old vertices … new vertices”. [0040], “optimized and either M4 or M3 must be changed or withdrawn”.)
Dey fails to disclose, however, Park teaches the following limitation:
heightening priorities of the node and the edge. (Laskawiec [0065], “the method 100 comprises prioritizing, 106, the naming rules, i.e. defining a sequence of applying them or defining an order of the rules. The periodization shall be dependent on their importance for entity identification. [0070], “system lists all applicable naming rules (i.e., or name words based on attributes that are not null attribute values). The database engine then determines each naming rule value is a hash value based on concatenated attributes' values”. Fig. 6 [0078] “a higher priority”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Laskawiec, in order to priorities a plurality of relationship information pieces and output a list of check items based on difference data (Laskawiec). This will check if there is an ethical violation of the AI. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey, Park and Laskawiec, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 5:
Dey in view of Park in view of Laskawiec disclose the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 4,
Dey further teach wherein the determining further includes detecting, as the difference from the second plurality of relationship information pieces, a subsequent node and a subsequent edge linked to the node that undergoes the change, and heightening priorities of the node and the edge. (Dey fig. 2 [0024-0025], “calculate a difference graph .. social network graphs .. denoting a change … differential graphic … edges … old vertices … new vertices”. [0040], “optimized and either M4 or M3 must be changed or withdrawn”.)
Dey fails to disclose, however, Park teaches the following limitation:
heightening priorities of the node and the edge. (Laskawiec [0065], “the method 100 comprises prioritizing, 106, the naming rules, i.e. defining a sequence of applying them or defining an order of the rules. The periodization shall be dependent on their importance for entity identification. [0070], “system lists all applicable naming rules (i.e., or name words based on attributes that are not null attribute values). The database engine then determines each naming rule value is a hash value based on concatenated attributes' values”. Fig. 6 [0078] “a higher priority”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Laskawiec, in order to priorities a plurality of relationship information pieces and output a list of check items based on difference data (Laskawiec). This will check if there is an ethical violation of the AI. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey, Park and Laskawiec, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 is the method claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 is the method claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 is the method claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the method claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the method claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey et al. US 2011/0173046 (hereinafter Dey) in view of Jungho Park KR 102248705 (hereinafter Park) in view of Laskawiec et al. US 2021/0311917 (hereinafter Laskawiec) in view of Nishikata et al. US 2014/0376359 (hereinafter Nishikata).
Regarding Claim 6:
Dey in view of Park in view of Laskawiec disclose the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 5 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Nishikata, in the same field of endeavor teaches , wherein the determining includes heightening priorities of the node and the edge by setting higher priorities to a node and an edge each having a less hop number from the node that undergoes the change among subsequent nodes and subsequent edges linked to an edge linked to the node that undergoes the change. (Nishikata [0049-0050], “determined to have a trouble is changed to "abnormal". Thereafter, when the GW advertisement in which the communication state with the higher-level device is normal is distributed from the gateway the "operating state" of which is "abnormal", the "operating state" is changed to "normal". the node 3 selects one among gateways the "operating state" and the "communication with higher-level device" of which are "normal" to be set as "in use", and the remaining one as "backup". Which gateway is to be set as "in use" when there is more than one candidate to be selected is determined based on the number of hops to a gateway, the communication quality on a path to a gateway, or the like. When selecting based on the number of hops, for example, one having the smaller number of hops has higher priority to be selected. When selecting based on the communication quality, for example, one having the highest transmission success rate in a past predetermined period has higher priority to be selected. It may be configured such that a gateway to be in use is successively switched each time transmission fails. Selection may be made based on more than one kind of information such as the number of hops and the communication quality”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dey, to include the feature as taught by Nishikata, in order to set higher priorities to a node and an edge each having a less hop number from the node/edge (Nishikata). This will check if there is an ethical violation. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Dey, Park, Laskawiec, and Nishikata, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the non-transitory claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gupta et al. US 2020/0371787: Flow convergence during hardware-software design for heterogeneous and programmable devices. ¶[0239].
Hsu CC, Lai YA, Chen WH, Feng MH, Lin SD. Unsupervised ranking using graph structures and node attributes. InProceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining 2017 Feb 2 (pp. 771-779).
Ucer S, Ozyer T, Alhajj R. Explainable artificial intelligence through graph theory by generalized social network analysis-based classifier. Scientific Reports. 2022 Sep 8;12(1):15210.
Mannengal et al. US 2023/0370452: Networked device security posture management.
Krishnamurti et al. US 2020/0051697: Structured Medical Data Classification System For Monitoring And Remediating Treatment Risks
Jezewski US 2023/0044564: Other Solution Automation & Interface Analysis Implementations
Levy et al. US 2015/0363795: System And Method For Gathering, Identifying And Analyzing Learning Patterns
Majumdar, Arun CA 3053531: Method and apparatus of machine learning using a network with software agents at the network nodes and then ranking network nodes.
Kondo et al. US 2014/0369235: Ad hoc network system and route selection method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624