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 .
Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1
a goal engine to establish at least one activity goal …
an activity decomposition engine … to decompose an activity into a network of logically-consistent potential sub-activities …
a ponderation engine … to assign … weights to the logically-consistent potential sub-activities …
a graph generation engine … to generate a multi-layer weighted graph …
a scenario generation engine … to determine a selected scenario path …
a feedback engine to apply learning from the scenario generation engine …
an output channel to output a personalised activity plan …
Claim 3
an active database operable to detect at least one anomaly and to query at least one data source
Claim 5
the world context knowledge base is operable to query a peer system
Claim 6
the personal digital memory store is operable to query a peer digital memory store
Claim 9
… an activity decomposition engine … to decompose an activity into a network of logically-consistent potential sub-activities …
… a ponderation engine … to assign … weights to the logically-consistent potential sub-activities …
generating, by a graph generation engine … a multi-layer weighted graph …
… a scenario generation engine … to determine a selected scenario path …
… a feedback engine to apply learning from the scenario generation engine …
emitting, by way of an output channel, a personalised activity plan …
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a “computer program.” The claimed “computer program” does not appear to be restricted to any type of hardware implementation, and could be considered to be implemented through software components alone. Thus, the claim is considered to be directed to a computer program, per se. A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-17 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.
As noted above, numerous claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For example, various portions of the specification provide support regarding the claimed limitations as follows:
Claim 1
a goal engine to establish at least one activity goal Fig. 1 element 108, p. 7, lines 12-13, “a goal generation engine 108 parses the input to redefine the activity in terms of one or more goals to be achieved.”
an activity decomposition engine … to decompose an activity into a network of logically-consistent potential sub-activities Fig. 1 element 110, p. 9, lines 2-4, “Activity decomposition engine 110 may be implemented using a knowledge-based system in conjunction with a neural network suitable for classification and decision-making.”
a ponderation engine … to assign … weights to the logically-consistent potential sub-activities Fig. 1 element 112, p. 6, lines 23-26, “a machine learning and inferencing engine capable of deriving factual and affect-based weightings for objects and events and representing those weightings according to a relative weighting schema.” P. 11, lines 6-8, “Ponderation engine 112 may be implemented using a knowledge-based system in conjunction with a neural network suitable for manipulation of weightings, …”
a graph generation engine … to generate a multi-layer weighted graph Fig. 1 element 114, p. 12, lines 1-3, “Graph generation engine 114 may be implemented using a knowledge-based system in conjunction with a neural network suitable for manipulation of weightings.”
a scenario generation engine … to determine a selected scenario path Fig. 1 element 116, p. 12, lines 10-14, “The decision-making process may be implemented, for example, by using a rules-based system, a pre-trained stochastic expert system, an autonomous or quasi-autonomous machine-learning and inferencing system, such as a deep learning neural network, or any combination of these technologies.”
a feedback engine to apply learning from the scenario generation engine Fig. 1 element 118, p. 12 lines 18-21, “Feedback engine 118 interacts with world context knowledge base 104 and personal digital memory 106 to provide augmentation information to update the state of world context knowledge and personal digital memory.”
an output channel to output a personalised activity plan Fig. 1 element 120, p. 12 lines 30-34, “the information about the selected scenario is passed from scenario generation engine 116 to the output channel 120 where it is formatted into a form suitable for output 122 to one or more entities outside the machine learning and inferencing system 100.”
Claim 3
an active database operable to detect at least one anomaly and to query at least one data source – p. 5, lines 2-5, “an active database that is operable to detect at least one anomaly in its stored information – such a discrepancy between two asserted facts – and to query at least one data source for additional data to attempt to resolve the anomaly.”
Claim 5
the world context knowledge base is operable to query a peer system – p. 5, lines 9-10, e.g. “query a peer world context knowledge system to acquire additional knowledge.”
Claim 6
the personal digital memory store is operable to query a peer digital memory store – p. 9, lines 29-33, “a personal digital memory 106 for a first user may be in electronic communication with a peer personal digital memory for a second or further user to ascertain the second user’s affect value for a particular activity or entity.”
Claim 9
Claim 9 includes limitations generally similar to those of claim 1 noted above.
The specification also provides the following at p. 16 lines 8-13, e.g. “Accordingly, the present technique may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware.”
While the specification provides broad support in terms of implementation using e.g. “machine-learning” or “deep learning,” etc., and also envisions implementation in hardware or software, the specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented § 112(f) limitation that performs a specific computer function is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but a computer specially programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. The specification fails to disclose any particular algorithms for performing the claimed specific computer functions. While the specification generally describes what each function does, it fails to describe how it does it (i.e. algorithm). Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 9 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of a goal engine, an activity decomposition engine, a ponderation engine, a graph generation engine, a scenario generation engine, a feedback engine, and an output channel. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Myers (1997) Abductive Completion of Plan Sketches. - See p. 687, bottom right “Informally, a task network is a partially ordered set of tasks (goals and actions) to be achieved, along with conditions on the world state before and after tasks are executed. Operator schemas specify methods for reducing an individual task to some new set of subtasks, under appropriate conditions.”
Van-Horenbeke FA and Peer A (2021) Activity, Plan, and Goal Recognition: A Review. - See p. 3, bottom right: “Goal recognition refers to the problem of inferring the intention of humans or other autonomous agents by observing a set of actions performed by those agents or their effect on the environment (Han and Pereira, 2013). This task usually gets as input an ordered sequence of action labels (which may come from an action recognition module) and possibly a set of conceivable goals, and outputs the goal label that best explains the observed actions (or a set of labels with their corresponding probabilities). This task is often also referred to as intention recognition or intent recognition.”
U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140272844 by Hendriks et al. ¶ 0056, “A genetic algorithm is then used to calculate the most opportune suggestions for actionable advice. Based on the user's reaction to these suggestions, actions are automatically planned in the user's agenda and values for the quantified intention-behavior gap are updated accordingly.”
U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180314963 by Kovacs et al. ¶ 0054, “The plan may involve not only path-planning (i.e., planning of movement), but also planning other activities, such as fueling, oil-change, cleaning, charging, exploration, etc. As other examples, an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV), an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), a deep-space spacecraft, and/or a planetary rover may perform a given task (e.g., achieve a goal or multiple goals) by scheduling and executing actions autonomously.”
U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210117214 by Presant et al. See ¶ 0009, “In particular embodiments, the assistant system may receive one or more inputs associated with proactive triggers associated with a first user. The assistant system may determine whether the first user is eligible to receive proactive suggestions based on one or more proactive policies. The assistant system may then generate one or more proactive suggestions based on the one or more inputs and user context data associated with the first user. In particular embodiments, the assistant system may select one or more of the proactive suggestions based on task history data associated with the first user. The assistant system may further send, to a client system associated the first user, instructions for presenting proactive content to the first user. The proactive content may comprise the selected proactive suggestions.”
U.S. Patent Application Publication 12009103 by Silansky et al. See Fig. 3, depicting determination of a health goal at element 3150 and a determination of sub-activities at element 3300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James D Rutten whose telephone number is (571)272-3703. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Li B Zhen can be reached at (571)272-3768. 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.
/James D. Rutten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights