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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, “plug-and-plug” renders the claim indefinite because it is not defined in the specification, it is not a well-known term of art, and it is unclear from a “plain meaning” standpoint what “plug-and-plug” means.
Regarding claim 1, the second recitation of “an explanation of an artificial intelligence model based on a plug-and-plug mode” because it is unclear if the explanation, the artificial intelligence model, and/or the plug-and-plug mode claim antecedence to their first recitation or if they are new instances.
Regarding claim 1, the third recitation of “an explanation of an artificial intelligence model” renders the claim indefinite if antecedence is claimed to the first recitation or if it is a new instance.
Regarding claim 1, “an artificial intelligence model” in the limitation “a plug-and-play manager for connecting an artificial intelligence model and the explanation module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the first recited instance of the model or if a new instance is created.
Regarding claim 1, the fourth recitation of “an explanation of an artificial intelligence model” renders the claim indefinite if antecedence is claimed to the first recitation or if it is a new instance.
Regarding claim 1, “for artificial intelligence models” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the already recited artificial intelligence models are included in the plural “artificial intelligence models”.
Regarding claim 1, “each explanation module” lacks antecedent basis in the claim because “an explanation module” is claimed, i.e. there are not plural explanation modules.
Regarding claim 1, in step (a), “an artificial intelligence module” and “an explanation module” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is to the previously recited artificial intelligence model and explanation module or if new instances are recited.
Regarding claim 1, in (b), “an artificial intelligence model” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the previously cited instance.
Regarding claim 1, “a list of available explanation modules” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the previously recited explanation module is related to or included in the explanation modules.
Regarding claim 3, “an artificial intelligence model” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is to the first recited model in claim 1 or not.
Regarding claim 3, “an explanation module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the first recited module in claim 1 or not.
Regarding claim 4, “(explanation kernel)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the parentheses indicate.
Regarding claim 4, “an explanation module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claim to the previously recited explanation modules in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, “an artificial intelligence model” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the first recited model in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, “AI” renders the claim indefinite because the acronym is not defined.
Regarding claim 5, “(CNN/DNN)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if DNN refers to the convolutional neural network or if “CNN/DNN” presents alternatives to what can be the convolutional neural network.
Regarding claim 5, “(RNN/LSTM)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “LSTM” indicates and/or if it can take the place of “RNN” in defining a recurrent neural network.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if “an AI model” takes antecedence from the “artificial intelligence model” previously claimed.
Regarding claim 7, “an explanation module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is traced to the previously claimed explanation module or if a new module is instantiated.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations within parentheses render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if they are in addition to or can take the place of the limitations directly before them.
Regarding claim 8, “the interfaces” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 2-11 are indefinite by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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 1-3, 7, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
providing an explanation of an artificial intelligence model based on a plug-and-plug mode, based on a system for proving an explanation of an artificial intelligence model based on a plug-and-plug mode, including: a service provider server equipped with an explanation module for providing an explanation of an artificial intelligence model and a plug-and-play manager for connecting an artificial intelligence model and the explanation module, and providing an explanation of an artificial intelligence model - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. The phrases succeeding “based on” serve to indicate what informs the provision of information, i.e. an observation made with the consideration of outside information.
recogniz[ing] a manufacturer, framework, and type of the artificial intelligence model - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
creates a list of available explanation modules on the basis of a recognition result in consideration of constraints on explanation modules - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
provides key information on explanation modules in the list of available explanation modules to the user terminal - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
selects one of the explanation modules in the list with reference to the key information on the explanation modules in the list and notifies the service provider server of the selected explanation module - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
provides an explanation of the input artificial intelligence model - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
a user terminal configured to communicate with the service provider server over the Internet and to receive an explanation service for artificial intelligence models from the service provider server, the method comprising: a step in which a controller of the service provider server sets a type of artificial intelligence model explainable by each explanation module for communication between an artificial intelligence model and an explanation module – The user terminal communication, service provider server, and controller are merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
when an artificial intelligence model requiring explanation is input, the plug-and-play manager recognizes a manufacturer, framework, and type of the artificial intelligence model - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the plug-and-play manager creates a list of available explanation modules on the basis of a recognition result in consideration of constraints on explanation modules - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the service provider server provides key information on explanation modules in the list of available explanation modules to the user terminal - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the user terminal selects one of the explanation modules in the list with reference to the key information on the explanation modules in the list and notifies the service provider server of the selected explanation module - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the plug-and-play manager derives the explanation module selected by the user terminal from among the explanation modules in the list; and the derived explanation module provides an explanation of the input artificial intelligence model to the user terminal - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
a user terminal configured to communicate with the service provider server over the Internet and to receive an explanation service for artificial intelligence models from the service provider server, the method comprising: a step in which a controller of the service provider server sets a type of artificial intelligence model explainable by each explanation module for communication between an artificial intelligence model and an explanation module – The user terminal communication, service provider server, and controller are merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
when an artificial intelligence model requiring explanation is input, the plug-and-play manager recognizes a manufacturer, framework, and type of the artificial intelligence model - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the plug-and-play manager creates a list of available explanation modules on the basis of a recognition result in consideration of constraints on explanation modules - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the service provider server provides key information on explanation modules in the list of available explanation modules to the user terminal - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the user terminal selects one of the explanation modules in the list with reference to the key information on the explanation modules in the list and notifies the service provider server of the selected explanation module - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the plug-and-play manager derives the explanation module selected by the user terminal from among the explanation modules in the list; and the derived explanation module provides an explanation of the input artificial intelligence model to the user terminal - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 2 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 2 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the plug-and-play manager has a list of explanation modules provided in advance by developers of explainable artificial intelligence, and the explanation module has information on types of explainable artificial intelligence models – This constitutes mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the plug-and-play manager has a list of explanation modules provided in advance by developers of explainable artificial intelligence, and the explanation module has information on types of explainable artificial intelligence models – This constitutes mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 3
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 3 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 3 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the plug-and-play manager has a list of explanation modules provided in advance by developers of explainable artificial intelligence, and the explanation module has information on types of explainable artificial intelligence models – This constitutes mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the plug-and-play manager has a list of explanation modules provided in advance by developers of explainable artificial intelligence, and the explanation module has information on types of explainable artificial intelligence models – This constitutes mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 7
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 7 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 7 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
configuring an interface between the artificial intelligence model and an explanation module for explaining input of the artificial intelligence model, and configuring an interface between the artificial intelligence model and the explanation module for explaining the inside of the artificial intelligence model – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
configuring an interface between the artificial intelligence model and an explanation module for explaining input of the artificial intelligence model, and configuring an interface between the artificial intelligence model and the explanation module for explaining the inside of the artificial intelligence model – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 9
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 9 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 9 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
the key information on the explanation modules in the list of available explanation modules includes characteristics of each explanation module and an explanation method and interfaces supported by each explanation module– This constitutes mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
the key information on the explanation modules in the list of available explanation modules includes characteristics of each explanation module and an explanation method and interfaces supported by each explanation module– This constitutes mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang, Wenzhuo, et al. "Omnixai: A library for explainable ai." arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01612 (2022)
Cugny, Robin, et al. "Autoxai: A framework to automatically select the most adapted xai solution." Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 2022.
Bavly, US 20210334693 A1
Dalli, US 20220114417 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights