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 .
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 11-20 are 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 claims 11-20 are directed to a computer program product. A computer program does not fall into one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection I).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites dividing an incident report into a plurality of text portions; assigning a plurality of text confidence values to the plurality of text portions; determining a report characteristic including a non-textual data type for the incident report; training a neural network model; inputting the plurality of text confidence values and the report characteristic into the neural network model; and outputting a network confidence value from the neural network model in response to inputting the plurality of text confidence values and the report characteristic. The claim limitations require observation of a incident report and making judgments or opinions about the contents of the incident report including assigning text confidence values and a network confidence value. The claim limitations describe activities that can be performed in the human mind and fall into the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 2-6, 9 and 10 depend from claim 1 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 9 and 10 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 2-6, 9 and 10 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites an additional element of generating a user interface including a plurality of visual representations corresponding to the plurality of text confidence values and the network confidence value, each visual representation indicating a flag status of the corresponding confidence value. The generation of a user interface with visual representations is insignificant post solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, claim 7 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have recognized that outputting the result of an abstract idea in various manners is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Therefore claim 7 is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 11 is directed to computer program product, which does not fall within a statutory category as discussed above (See MPEP 2106.03). However, even if claim 11 recited a statutory category the limitations of claim 11 recite an abstract idea similar to that recited in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 12-16, 19 and 20 depend from claim 11 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 12-16, 19 and 20 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 12-16, 19 and 20 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites an additional element of generating a user interface including a plurality of visual representations corresponding to the plurality of text confidence values and the network confidence value, each visual representation indicating a flag status of the corresponding confidence value. The generation of a user interface with visual representations is insignificant post solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, claim 17 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have recognized that outputting the result of an abstract idea in various manners is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Therefore claim 17 is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2024/0232609 to Penfield et al. (Penfield).
Claims 1 and 11
With regard to dividing an incident report into a plurality of text portions; Penfield teaches generating vectors representing fields of a document (Fig. 2, step 202; par. 40, 48-51).
With regard to assigning a plurality of text confidence values to the plurality of text portions; Penfield teaches determining a probability that a vector representation is of a lessons-learned record (Fig. 2, steps 203, 204; par. 40).
With regard to determining a report characteristic including a non-textual data type for the incident report; Penfield teaches a numerical vector (par. 43).
With regard to training a neural network model; Penfield teaches training a deep neural network (Fig. 1, training model; Fig. 3, par. 41).
With regard to inputting the plurality of text confidence values and the report characteristic into the neural network model; Penfield teaches using the vectors representations to determine whether a document is a lessons-learned record or not (Fig. 2, step 206, par. 40).
With regard to outputting a network confidence value from the neural network model in response to inputting the plurality of text confidence values and the report characteristic; Penfield teaches using the vectors representations to determine whether a document is a lessons-learned record or not and outputting the classification (Fig. 2, step 206, par. 40).
Claims 3 and 13
Penfield teaches that determining the report characteristic including the non-textual data type includes determining the report characteristic using the incident report (par. 43).
Claim 4 and 14
Penfield teaches that the non-textual data type includes at least one of a Boolean value, a categorical value, or an identification value (par.43).
Claims 5 and 15
Penfield teaches determining a flag status for the incident report after comparing the network confidence value and a flag threshold, and comparing the plurality of text confidence values and a plurality of flag thresholds (par. 40).
Claim 7 and 17
Penfield teaches generating a user interface including a plurality of visual representations corresponding to the plurality of text confidence values and the network confidence value, each visual representation indicating a flag status of the corresponding confidence value (pars. 73, 74).
Claim 8 and 18
Penfield teaches that training the neural network model uses historical text confidence values, historical report characteristics, and historical network confidence values (pars. 41-44).
Claim 10 and 20
Penfield teaches determining a plurality of report characteristics, each including a non-textual data type, at least one of the report characteristics being a non-normalized numerical value, at least one of the report characteristics being a normalized numerical value, and at least one of the report characteristics being a categorical value represented by one hot encoding (pars. 36, 37, 44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights