Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 15, 2023 is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on September 15, 2023 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §112
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite: claim 1 of the instant application recites the limitations "the other time series variable" and “the other time” in page 1, eighteen lines into the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is analogous to claim 1 and includes similar issue. The remaining claims depend on claim 1 and inherit the attribute of claim 1 and include similar issue.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-8: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A factor analysis support system for time-series data that analyzes transition of a contribution degree to an objective variable by a time-series variable, the system comprising:
a time-series causal model storage unit configured to store a time-series causal model for each time-series variable;
a contribution degree calculation unit configured to calculate, using the time-series causal model stored in the time-series causal model storage unit and time-series data of an analysis target, a contribution degree restoration rate obtained by evaluating how much the contribution degree of each time-series variable at each time is required to be restored to the contribution degree of another time-series variable at another time;
a contribution degree restoration unit configured to restore, based on the contribution degree restoration rate calculated by the contribution degree calculation unit, the contribution degree of each time-series variable at each time to the contribution degree of the other time-series variable at the other time, and to calculate the transition of the contribution degree by a root factor with respect to the objective variable; and
an output unit configured to output the contribution degree by the root factor with respect to the objective variable, the contribution degree being calculated by the contribution degree restoration unit.
Step 2A:
Prong I:
The claim recites the steps of “analyzes transition of a contribution degree to an objective variable by a time-series variable”, “calculate, using the time-series causal model ….and time-series data of an analysis target, a contribution degree restoration rate obtained by evaluating how much the contribution degree of each time-series variable at each time is required to be restored to the contribution degree of another time-series variable at another time”; “restore, based on the contribution degree restoration rate calculated by the contribution degree calculation, the contribution degree of each time-series variable at each time to the contribution degree of the other time-series variable at the other time, and to calculate the transition of the contribution degree by a root factor with respect to the objective variable” and “output [or provide] the contribution degree by the root factor with respect to the objective variable, the contribution degree…” These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites “a factor analysis support system”, “a time-series causal model storage unit”, “a contribution degree calculation unit”, “a contribution degree restoration unit” and “an output unit”. However, the system is generic computer setup with generic computer and computational model for the purposes of carrying out the computational analysis and outputting on a generic output unit, such as a monitor. These are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 8 is analogous to claim 1, except it is directed to a method claim and includes a computer for the analysis. It recites a computer as additional element separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, this additional element, i.e. computer, is merely generic computer processing components that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to the causal model and its sources for the purposes of carrying out the prediction computational analysis, and would be considered a human thought process and or mathematical computation.
Dependent claim 3: the instant claim is directed to a predictor model, such as a probability measure, and use the outcome to calculate the degree of restoration rate, would be considered a human thought process and or mathematical computation.
Dependent claim 4: the instant claim is directed to the characterization of the root factor and how it is computed, and it would be considered a human thought process and or mathematical computation.
Dependent claim 5: the instant claim is directed to the output unit, and output unit or the act of outputting a result, and considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and it is outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 6: the instant claim is directed to a display having to show a factor analysis, considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and it is outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 7: the instant claim is directed to having a display to show a graph of the computational analysis, such as the contribution degree, and is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and it is outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-8: Horiwaki et al. (U.S. PAP 2018/0307219, hereon Horiwaki) discloses a failure cause extraction system which includes an input section, an initial causal relation model construction condition setting section, a data aggregation section, a causal relation model construction section, a subset extraction section, a subset and domain knowledge verification section, a causal relation model construction condition restriction setting section. The input section acquires monitor data which indicates a state of a product manufacturing process, quality data which is a result of a quality testing process of the product, a causal relation model construction condition which indicates a condition in a case where a causal relation model is constructed, and domain knowledge of a target manufacturing process. The initial causal relation model construction condition setting section sets an initial causal relation model construction condition, which is an initial condition in the case where the causal relation model is constructed, using the causal relation model construction condition. The data aggregation section aggregates the monitor data and the quality data as manufacturing data. The causal relation model construction section constructs the causal relation model on the manufacturing data.
The instant application differs in that the system or method includes “a contribution degree calculation unit configured to calculate, using the time-series causal model …and contribution degree restoration unit configured to restore, based on the contribution degree restoration rate calculated by the contribution degree calculation unit, the contribution degree of each time series variable at each time to the contribution degree of the [another] time series variable at the [another] time, and to calculate the transition of the contribution degree by a root factor with respect to the objective variable.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Muro (U.S. Patent No. 11,126,948) discloses an analysis system for performing yield analysis in order to establish an improved and high efficiency manufacturing.
Kawata et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,393,143) discloses a process-state analysis device for the purposes of analyzing and monitoring manufacturing process of industrial products. The process-state analysis device tracks changes that are often missed by multi-dimensional analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857