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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) that does not appear mentioned in the description: 110 (FIG. 1B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Title of Invention, Suggested Change. The following title is suggested: "DISPLAYING CAUSATION SCORE VISUALIZATIONS FROM PROCESSING SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE METADATA"
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 3, 6, 7, 15, 18, and 19 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.
Claims 3 and 15 are indefinite for use of the ambiguous term "another value." Claim 3 recites "multiplying the odds ratio by another value" in the context of determining the magnitude score. The term "another" presupposes a referent, e.g., "another" means "a different one" relative to some previously identified entity. However, neither claim 3 nor any claim in the dependency chain of claims 1→ 2→ 3 establishes what "another" is contrasting against. The claim does not identify a first value against which "another value" is distinguished, leaving a person of ordinary skill in the art unable to determine the scope of the limitation with reasonable certainty. Additionally, the specification at paragraph [0025] describes the magnitude score using the labeled formula (4). This formula involves multiplying the odds ratio ORi by the composite factor sqrt(IFi ∙ bi) (the square root of the product of the journal impact factor and a statistical significance indicator). The claim does not tether "another value" to this factor or to any other defined quantity, leaving the scope of the limitation irresolvably ambiguous. A PHOSITA cannot determine whether "another value" is limited to a weighting factor of the type described in the specification or encompasses any multiplicative factor whatsoever. See MPEP § 2173.05(b); MPEP § 2173.04.
For purposes of examination, "another value" in claim 3 is interpreted under BRI to encompass any weighting factor or scaling value by which the odds ratio is multiplied.
Claim 15 presents the identical indefiniteness issue as claim 3, arising in the context of the CRM claim 13 dependency chain. The analysis is the same. For purposes of examination, "another value" in claim 15 is interpreted under BRI identically to claim 3.
Claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 are indefinite for lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the proximity data" in the limitation "determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, introduces "directionality data" and "evidence data" but does not introduce "proximity data" in any form. Claim 6 itself does not introduce "proximity data" prior to reciting "the proximity data." Because neither claim 6 nor any claim in the dependency chain of claim 1→6 recites "a proximity data" or "proximity data" (without the definite article) prior to use of "the proximity data," the limitation lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
For purposes of examination, "the proximity data" in claim 6 is interpreted under BRI as data categorizing the directness of evidence in each article relative to the target population—for example, categorizations such as human, animal, or in vitro—as described in the specification at paragraph [0019].
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and inherits its indefiniteness.
Claim 18 is rejected for the identical reason as claim 6. Claim 18 depends from independent claim 13 and recites "the proximity data" in the limitation "determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data." Claim 13, identical in substance to claim 1 in CRM form, likewise does not introduce "proximity data." There is therefore no antecedent basis for "the proximity data" in the claim 13 → claim 18 dependency chain. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and inherits its indefiniteness.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
CLAIM 1
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome,” which sets forth a series of steps and therefore falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites a mental process—the evaluation of, and formation of judgments about, scientific literature to assess whether an agent causes an outcome. The following limitations recite the abstract idea: “determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome, aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset”; “computing the first causation score based on the magnetism score”; “computing a future publication count, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.” These limitations describe observations, evaluations, judgments, and estimations that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper—for example, by a scientist performing a literature review or meta-analysis who reads each article, judges whether it supports or rejects the causal hypothesis (directionality) and how well its methodology demonstrates causation (evidence), combines those judgments for each article, aggregates them across the articles reviewed, forms an overall judgment as to causation, and estimates future publication activity. Concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, are mental processes within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). These information-collection-and-analysis limitations are not meaningfully different from those found to be an abstract idea in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1 recites these operations using generic, result-oriented language (“determining,” “aggregating,” “computing”) without setting forth or describing any particular equation, algorithm, or calculation by name; the claim therefore recites a mental process and merely involves, rather than recites, a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.04 II(A)(1) (distinguishing claims that “recite” from claims that merely “involve” a judicial exception); July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (Example 39 vs. Example 47). Specific mathematical-concept characterizations are addressed below with respect to the dependent claims that name a particular calculation (e.g., claims 3, 7, and 8).
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements:
“A computer-implemented method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome” amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year”…This insignificant extra-solution activity—namely, the gathering and selection of the data to be analyzed (pre-solution activity). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“displaying the general causation visualization on the display device; displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score… displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year”…The three “displaying” steps and the “display device” add only post-solution output of the results of the abstract idea on a generic display, which is likewise insignificant extra-solution activity and merely generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and (h); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under the two-step improvement analysis (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), the specification does not describe a technological improvement that the claim reflects. The specification describes a method of assessing scientific consensus on whether an agent causes an outcome by computing causation scores from article metadata and projecting future scores (spec at ¶[0003] and ¶[0030]-[0034]). The asserted benefits—a more accurate assessment of whether an agent causes an outcome and a prediction of future scientific acceptance—are improvements to the abstract analytical process itself (the evaluation and scoring of scientific literature), not improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The specification confirms that the invention is carried out on generic hardware used as a tool: “The system 700 can include a CPU 704, storage 702, memory 706, and display 708,” where “[t]he storage can be any non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as a solid-state drive or a hard disk drive” (spec at ¶[0035]). Unlike Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025), where the specification disclosed an improvement to how the machine-learning model itself operates (overcoming catastrophic forgetting, reduced storage, and reduced complexity) and the claims reflected that improvement, the present specification discloses no analogous improvement to a technology, and the claim recites the future-score computation only at a high level of generality (“computing a future publication count, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count”) without the components or steps that could provide any such improvement. Per Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a claim that does not include limitations addressing an asserted improvement does not benefit from the improvement consideration. The claim therefore does not reflect a technological improvement.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than gather data, perform the abstract evaluation and scoring, and display the result using generic computer components performing their ordinary functions; they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 does not satisfy Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “computer-implemented method” invokes a generic computer performing generic functions, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and insufficient to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 225-26 (2014). The “processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets” is the gathering and selection of data, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “displaying” steps and the “display device” amount to presenting and displaying data, which the courts have likewise recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355. The specification itself confirms the conventional nature of the hardware, describing only a generic “CPU,” “storage,” “memory,” and “display” (spec at ¶[0035]). Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements perform their conventional functions in the conventional sequence of gathering, analyzing, and displaying data, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1356; Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. Accordingly, claim 1 does not satisfy Step 2B and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
CLAIM 2
Step 1: Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites “the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article” and “determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.” Determining a magnitude score from the observed strength of association, and basing the causation score further on it, is a further evaluation and judgment of the same character as the abstract idea of claim 1 and can be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 3
Step 1: Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites “the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.” The recited “multiplying the odds ratio by another value” sets forth a specific mathematical calculation and therefore recites a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I); see also July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47 (a limitation that names a specific calculation recites a mathematical concept).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 4
Step 1: Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites “the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.” Basing the magnetism score further on literature impact data (e.g., journal quality) is a further evaluation and judgment of the same character as the abstract idea of claim 1 and can be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 5
Step 1: Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites “the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.” This limitation merely constrains how the literature impact data used in the abstract evaluation is determined and does not alter the abstract character of the claim. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 6
Step 1: Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites “determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.” Determining a coherence score from the directionality and proximity data, and basing the causation score further on it, is a further evaluation and judgment of the same character as the abstract idea of claim 1 and can be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 7
Step 1: Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites “calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.” Calculating a test statistic (e.g., a chi-squared statistic, see spec at ¶[0027]) of the aggregated proximity categorizations sets forth a specific statistical calculation and therefore recites a mathematical concept; it can also be practically performed by a human using pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 8
Step 1: Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 8 additionally recites “aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.” Aggregating the product of the respective evidence data and directionality data for each article sets forth a specific mathematical calculation (forming products and summing them) and therefore recites a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 9
Step 1: Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 9 additionally recites “the evidence data includes a categorization of a methodology of the respective article” and “selecting an evidence data value associated with the categorization.” Categorizing an article’s methodology and selecting an associated evidence value is an evaluation and judgment (classification) that can be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 10
Step 1: Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 10 incorporates all the limitations of claim 1 and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea identified for claim 1. Claim 10 additionally recites “respective proximity categorizations categorize each article in the first dataset as at least one of a human study, an animal study, and an in vitro study.” Categorizing each article as a human, animal, or in vitro study is a classification and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: No new additional elements are introduced. Therefore the analysis from the parent claim is maintained.
CLAIM 11
Step 1: Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements:
“the general causation visualization includes a graph of causation score as a function of time, the graph including the representation of the first causation score and the representation of the second causation score.”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For the same reasons discussed in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis of claim 1, the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. With respect to the “graph of causation score as a function of time,” displaying the computed scores as a time-series graph is insignificant post-solution output of the results of the abstract idea and merely generally links the abstract idea to a generic display; it is a conventional manner of presenting data and does not improve display technology or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and (h); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, claim 11 does not satisfy Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the additional elements of claim 1, the analysis is the same as for claim 1. With respect to the “graph of causation score as a function of time,” presenting and displaying computed results as a graph is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355. The ordered combination does not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, claim 11 does not satisfy Step 2B and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
CLAIM 12
Step 1: Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 12 incorporates all the limitations of claim 1 and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea identified for claim 1. Claim 12 additionally recites that “This limitation further specifies the additional element of data gathering. The additional elements of claim 12 are those of claim 1, with the data gathering further specified to select metadata within a time threshold of each year.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements:
“processing the corpus of scientific article metadata includes: obtaining the first dataset including article metadata within a time threshold of the first year; and obtaining the second dataset including article metadata within the time threshold of the second year.”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For the same reasons discussed in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis of claim 1, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The further specification that each dataset is obtained within a time threshold of its respective year merely narrows the pre-solution data gathering by selecting a particular subset of data, which remains insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, claim 12 does not satisfy Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Selecting and gathering data within a time window is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The ordered combination does not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, claim 12 does not satisfy Step 2B and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13-20 are substantially similar in scope and spirit to claims 1-8. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-8 are applied accordingly. Claim 13-20 only substantively differ from claims 1-8 in the Step 1 analysis, reciting: “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable to perform a method,” which is an article of manufacture and therefore falls within the statutory category of a manufacture. See MPEP 2106.03.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,893,511. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each instant claim is anticipated by, and generic to, the correspondingly-numbered claim of the patent. Each instant claim recites a subset of the limitations of the patented claim — omitting the patented claim's recited "weighting [of] the magnetism score based on proximity data indicating directness of evidence" and its derivation of the future publication count from "a random walk from a short term average publication rate" — such that the entire scope of each patented claim falls within the scope of the correspondingly-numbered instant claim. A later patent to such a genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by the earlier, narrower patented claims (see MPEP § 804, subsection II.B.2).
Instant Claim 1 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 1
Instant Application Claims
U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claims
A computer-implemented method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
A computer-implemented method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and weighting the magnetism score based on proximity data indicating directness of evidence in each article in the first dataset, and
computing the first causation score based on the magnetism score; and
computing the first causation score based on the weighted magnetism score; and
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, including:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, including:
computing a future publication count, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.
determining a random walk from a short term average publication rate, computing a future publication count based on the random walk, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.
Instant Claim 2 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
Instant Claim 3 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 3
The method of claim 2, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
The method of claim 2, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
Instant Claim 4 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
Instant Claim 5 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 5
The method of claim 4, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
The method of claim 4, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
Instant Claim 6 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 6
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
Instant Claim 7 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 7
The method of claim 6, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
The method of claim 6, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
Instant Claim 8 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
Instant Claim 9 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 9
The method of claim 1, wherein the evidence data includes a categorization of a methodology of the respective article, the method further comprising: selecting an evidence data value associated with the categorization.
The method of claim 1, wherein the evidence data includes a categorization of a methodology of the respective article, the method further comprising: selecting an evidence data value associated with the categorization.
Instant Claim 10 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 10
The method of claim 1, wherein respective proximity categorizations categorize each article in the first dataset as at least one of a human study, an animal study, and an in vitro study.
The method of claim 1, wherein respective proximity categorizations categorize each article in the first dataset as at least one of a human study, an animal study, and an in vitro study.
Instant Claim 11 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 11
The method of claim 1, wherein the general causation visualization includes a graph of causation score as a function of time, the graph including the representation of the first causation score and the representation of the second causation score.
The method of claim 1, wherein the general causation visualization includes a graph of causation score as a function of time, the graph including the representation of the first causation score and the representation of the second causation score.
Instant Claim 12 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 12
The method of claim 1, wherein processing the corpus of scientific article metadata includes: obtaining the first dataset including article metadata within a time threshold of the first year; and obtaining the second dataset including article metadata within the time threshold of the second year.
The method of claim 1, wherein processing the corpus of scientific article metadata includes: obtaining the first dataset including article metadata within a time threshold of the first year; and obtaining the second dataset including article metadata within the time threshold of the second year.
Instant Claim 13 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 13
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable to perform a method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable to perform a method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and weighting the magnetism score based on proximity data indicating directness of evidence in each article in the first dataset, and
computing the first causation score based on the magnetism score; and
computing the first causation score based on the weighted magnetism score; and
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, including:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, including:
computing a future publication count, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.
determining a random walk from a short term average publication rate, computing a future publication count based on the random walk, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.
Instant Claim 14 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 14
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
Instant Claim 15 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 15
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
Instant Claim 16 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 16
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
Instant Claim 17 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 17
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
Instant Claim 18 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 18
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, the method further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, the method further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
Instant Claim 19 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 19
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
Instant Claim 20 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,511 Claim 20
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,853,734. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims differ from the correspondingly-numbered patented claims only in that (i) the instant claims omit the patented claims' "weighting [of] the magnetism score based on proximity data indicating directness of evidence," and (ii) the instant claims recite computing the second-year causation score from "a future publication count." Omitting the weighting step merely broadens the instant claims and cannot render them patentably distinct over the narrower patented claims. The sole added feature — computing the second-year score from a future publication count — would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, because the patented claims already require displaying "a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year," and projecting that future-year score from an anticipated publication count is a predictable implementation of the patented subject matter (see MPEP § 804, subsection II.B.3).
Instant Claim 1 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 1
Instant Application Claims
U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claims
A computer-implemented method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
A computer-implemented method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and weighting the magnetism score based on proximity data indicating directness of evidence in each article in the first dataset, and
computing the first causation score based on the magnetism score; and
computing the first causation score based on the weighted magnetism score; and
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, including:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year.
computing a future publication count, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.
[No counterpart limitation recited. The patented claim computes the second causation score "based on the second dataset associated with the second year" without reciting a future publication count — see obviousness rationale]
Instant Claim 2 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
Instant Claim 3 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 3
The method of claim 2, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
The method of claim 2, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
Instant Claim 4 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
Instant Claim 5 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 5
The method of claim 4, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
The method of claim 4, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
Instant Claim 6 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 6
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
Instant Claim 7 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 7
The method of claim 6, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
The method of claim 6, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
Instant Claim 8 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
Instant Claim 9 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 9
The method of claim 1, wherein the evidence data includes a categorization of a methodology of the respective article, the method further comprising: selecting an evidence data value associated with the categorization.
The method of claim 1, wherein the evidence data includes a categorization of a methodology of the respective article, the method further comprising: selecting an evidence data value associated with the categorization.
Instant Claim 10 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 10
The method of claim 1, wherein respective proximity categorizations categorize each article in the first dataset as at least one of a human study, an animal study, and an in vitro study.
The method of claim 1, wherein respective proximity categorizations categorize each article in the first dataset as at least one of a human study, an animal study, and an in vitro study.
Instant Claim 11 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 11
The method of claim 1, wherein the general causation visualization includes a graph of causation score as a function of time, the graph including the representation of the first causation score and the representation of the second causation score.
The method of claim 1, wherein the general causation visualization includes a graph of causation score as a function of time, the graph including the representation of the first causation score and the representation of the second causation score.
Instant Claim 12 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 12
The method of claim 1, wherein processing the corpus of scientific article metadata includes: obtaining the first dataset including article metadata within a time threshold of the first year; and obtaining the second dataset including article metadata within the time threshold of the second year.
The method of claim 1, wherein processing the corpus of scientific article metadata includes: obtaining the first dataset including article metadata within a time threshold of the first year; and obtaining the second dataset including article metadata within the time threshold of the second year.
Instant Claim 13 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 13
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable to perform a method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable to perform a method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and weighting the magnetism score based on proximity data indicating directness of evidence in each article in the first dataset, and
computing the first causation score based on the magnetism score; and
computing the first causation score based on the weighted magnetism score; and
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, including:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year.
computing a future publication count, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.
[No counterpart limitation recited. The patented claim computes the second causation score "based on the second dataset associated with the second year" without reciting a future publication count — see obviousness rationale]
Instant Claim 14 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 14
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
Instant Claim 15 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 15
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
Instant Claim 16 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 16
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
Instant Claim 17 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 17
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
Instant Claim 18 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 18
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, the method further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, the method further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
Instant Claim 19 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 19
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
Instant Claim 20 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 10,853,734 Claim 20
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,430,739. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims differ from the correspondingly-numbered patented claims only in that (i) the instant claims omit the patented claims' weighting of the magnetism score by a "proximity score ... indicating directness of evidence," and (ii) the instant claims recite computing the second-year causation score from "a future publication count." Omitting the weighting step merely broadens the instant claims and cannot render them patentably distinct over the narrower patented claims. The sole added feature — computing the second-year score from a future publication count — would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, because the patented claims already require displaying a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, and projecting that future-year score from an anticipated publication count is a predictable implementation of the patented subject matter (see MPEP § 804, subsection II.B.3).
Instant Claim 1 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 1
Instant Application Claims
U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claims
A computer-implemented method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
A computer-implemented method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, determining a proximity score by aggregating respective proximity categorizations of each article in the first dataset, each respective proximity categorization indicating directness of evidence in each respective article, weighting the magnetism score based on the proximity score, and
computing the first causation score based on the magnetism score; and
computing the first causation score based on the weighted magnetism score; and
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, including:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year.
computing a future publication count, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.
[No counterpart limitation recited. The patented claim computes the second causation score "based on the second dataset associated with the second year" without reciting a future publication count — see obviousness rationale]
Instant Claim 2 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
Instant Claim 3 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 3
The method of claim 2, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
The method of claim 2, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
Instant Claim 4 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
Instant Claim 5 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 5
The method of claim 4, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
The method of claim 4, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
Instant Claim 6 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 6
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
Instant Claim 7 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 7
The method of claim 6, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
The method of claim 6, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
Instant Claim 8 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
Instant Claim 9 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 9
The method of claim 1, wherein the evidence data includes a categorization of a methodology of the respective article, the method further comprising: selecting an evidence data value associated with the categorization.
The method of claim 1, wherein the evidence data includes a categorization of a methodology of the respective article, the method further comprising: selecting an evidence data value associated with the categorization.
Instant Claim 10 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 10
The method of claim 1, wherein respective proximity categorizations categorize each article in the first dataset as at least one of a human study, an animal study, and an in vitro study.
The method of claim 1, wherein respective proximity categorizations categorize each article in the first dataset as at least one of a human study, an animal study, and an in vitro study.
Instant Claim 11 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 11
The method of claim 1, wherein the general causation visualization includes a graph of causation score as a function of time, the graph including the representation of the first causation score and the representation of the second causation score.
The method of claim 1, wherein the general causation visualization includes a graph of causation score as a function of time, the graph including the representation of the first causation score and the representation of the second causation score.
Instant Claim 12 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 12
The method of claim 1, wherein processing the corpus of scientific article metadata includes: obtaining the first dataset including article metadata within a time threshold of the first year; and obtaining the second dataset including article metadata within the time threshold of the second year.
The method of claim 1, wherein processing the corpus of scientific article metadata includes: obtaining the first dataset including article metadata within a time threshold of the first year; and obtaining the second dataset including article metadata within the time threshold of the second year.
Instant Claim 13 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 13
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable to perform a method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable to perform a method of displaying, on a display device, a general causation visualization for an agent and an outcome, the method comprising:
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
processing a corpus of scientific article metadata to obtain two subsets associated with the agent and the outcome, including a first dataset associated with a first year, and a second dataset associated with a second year;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying the general causation visualization on the display device;
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the first year, a representation of a first causation score computed by:
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
determining a respective magnetism score for each respective article in the first dataset based on directionality data, the directionality data indicating whether the respective article supports or rejects a hypothesis that the agent causes the outcome, and evidence data, the evidence data indicating how well methodology of the article can demonstrate a causal relationship between the agent and the outcome,
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, and
aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset to obtain a magnetism score for the first dataset, determining a proximity score by aggregating respective proximity categorizations of each article in the first dataset, each respective proximity categorization indicating directness of evidence in each respective article, weighting the magnetism score based on the proximity score, and
computing the first causation score based on the magnetism score; and
computing the first causation score based on the weighted magnetism score; and
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year, including:
displaying, in a portion of the general causation visualization associated with the second year, a representation of a second causation score computed based on the second dataset associated with the second year.
computing a future publication count, and computing the second causation score based on the future publication count.
[No counterpart limitation recited. The patented claim computes the second causation score "based on the second dataset associated with the second year" without reciting a future publication count — see obviousness rationale]
Instant Claim 14 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 14
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes magnitude data, the magnitude data indicating strength of association between the agent and the outcome as observed in an associated article, the method further comprising: determining a magnitude score based on the magnitude data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the magnitude score.
Instant Claim 15 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 15
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the magnitude data includes an odds ratio, and determining the magnitude score includes multiplying the odds ratio by another value.
Instant Claim 16 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 16
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the first dataset further includes literature impact data, and the magnetism score is further based on the literature impact data.
Instant Claim 17 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 17
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the literature impact data is determined independent of the agent and the outcome.
Instant Claim 18 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 18
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, the method further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, the method further comprising: determining a coherence score based on the directionality data and the proximity data, wherein the first causation score is further based on the coherence score.
Instant Claim 19 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 19
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, the method further comprising: calculating a test statistic of aggregated proximity categorizations for articles in the first dataset, wherein the coherence score is determined based on the calculated test statistic.
Instant Claim 20 ↔ U.S. Pat. No. 9,430,739 Claim 20
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein aggregating the respective magnetism scores for the articles in the first dataset includes aggregating the product of respective evidence data and respective directionality data for each respective article in the first dataset.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patents and/or related publications are cited in the Notice of References Cited (Form PTO-892) attached to this action to further show the state of the art with respect to determining scientific consensus on agent-outcome causation by aggregating assertion types in a corpus of scientific publications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/ALAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights