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 Interpretation
Claims 12-17 are directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium. When looking to the instant specification the computer-readable storage medium in paragraph [0025] cites “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire.”, as such the examiner interprets the computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium of claims 12-17 to not include transitory medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 6, 17 and 20 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. The claims cites “substantially identical results” in claim 6 and 17 and “substantially identical convergence states” in claim 20. A review of the instant specification reveals that the term “substantially identical” is not used at all. The term substantial is only used paragraphs [0031 and 0119] which talks about running processes at the same time. As such there is not written description for claims 6, 17 and 20.
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 6, 17 and 20 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.
The term “substantially identical results” in claim 6 and 17 and “substantially identical convergence states” in claim 20 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the membership function". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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. The claims recite a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment and mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claims are combination of extra-solution activity in combination with generic computer hardware used to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 12, and 18
Step 1: The claim recites a method, computer program product comprising computer readable storage medium and a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Formulating, a map of plurality of nodes, wherein each node corresponds to a concept; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user creates a map of nodes wherein each node represents a concept, can de done with the aid of pen and paper.) ---generating a map of plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes comprises at least one non-exogenous node and a set of exogeneous nodes, wherein the node types are visually distinct from one another; (claim 12) (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user creates a map of nodes non-exogenous and exogenous nodes, wherein each node type looks different, can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
Generate a series of exogenous nodes, wherein each of the exogenous nodes has an adjustable activation value; generate a series of non-exogenous node wherein the series of non-exogenous node are visually distinct from exogenous nodes; apply a causal relationship between selected nodes; populate the map wherein nodes beyond a predetermined degree of relationship to a non-exogenous node are hidden; (claim 18) (This amounts to a mental process wherein a map of exogenous and non-exogenous nodes are generated with lines connecting them showing a causal relationship between the nodes, and hiding or remove nodes beyond a degree of relationship. This can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
assigning activation values drawn from appropriate vocabularies of words for a set of exogenous nodes within the plurality of nodes; assign linguistic activation values for the set of exogenous nodes (Claim 12); assign a linguistic term to the convergence states of the non-exogenous nodes (claim 18); (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user assigns values to nodes.)
establishing a set of causal relationships between the plurality of nodes, creating a connection between the nodes where a causal relationship is determined, and assigning a linguistic term describing the connection strength to each such connection; apply a set of casual relationships between the plurality of nodes, wherein the causal relationships are shown in the map and the of causal relationship is show (claim 12); (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user creates relationship between the nodes by drawing lines connected the nodes and labeling with strength of connections. Can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
manipulating the plurality of nodes based on the set of exogenous nodes and a set of non-exogenous nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes are modified to visually indicate the node type; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user labels the nodes to indicate the type of nodes they are. This can done with the aid of pen and paper.)
select a degree of relationship from the non-exogenous node, wherein all nodes beyond the selected degree of relationship are hidden in the map (claim 12); (This is mental process wherein a user selects a value (degree) of relationship and remove or hid any nodes not exceeding value. This can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
repositioning the plurality of nodes in the map; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user can remove node or move for better position to be closer to related nodes. This can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
iterating the map until a convergence state is reached for each non-exogenous node, wherein the convergence state represents an equilibrium condition between the connected nodes, given the states of the set of exogenous nodes; iterate the map until a convergence state is reached for the non-exogenous node, wherein the convergence state represents an equilibrium condition between the nodes for the given causal relationships, wherein the equilibrium condition between the nodes for the given causal relationships, wherein the equilibrium condition is dependent upon the assigned activation values for the set of exogenous nodes (claim 12); iterate the map until the non-exogenous node state reaches a convergence condition (claim 18); (This limitation is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement. Iterating the map until a convergence state is reached is considered both a mental process and a mathematical concept. That is, iterating a map, under BRI in light of the specification, is just continually applying mathematical calculations to at least a set of nodes. Additionally, the step of "until a convergence state is reached for at least one non- exogenous node, wherein the convergence state represents an equilibrium condition between the connected nodes, given the states of the set of exogenous nodes" is simply a mental process. That is checking to see if some nodes are converged or at some equilibrium is a simple evaluation or judgement by looking at the current states of the nodes.)
assigning a linguistic term to the relationships between the nodes based on a relationship between word index values and their corresponding linguistic terms; (This is mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user assigns a word/linguistic term to the relationship between nodes.)
calculating the states of the at least one non-exogenous node based on the linguistic terms associated with all of the connected nodes; and (This limitation is a mental process and a mathematical concept wherein calculating the states is just simply applying (simple evaluation) trivial mathematical operators to known values (e.g. node values) and/or applying mathematical equations to known values.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
Using one or more processors; (this amount to using generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea, see MPE 2106.05(f).)
Iterating until convergence (This is performing repetitive calculations which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
generating, by one or more processors, a graphical representation in a user interface of the state of the selected non-exogenous node; generate a graphical representation of the convergence state of the non-exogenous node (claim 18); (This amounts to displaying data which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and using generic computer harder (user interface) see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device (Claim 12); (this is using generic computer hardware performing generic function to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
Using one or more processors; a central processing unit, a computer readable memory and a computer readable storage medium associated with a computing device, program instructions (claim 18); (this amount to using generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea, see MPE 2106.05(f).)
Iterating until convergence (This is well understood, routine and conventional see MPE 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) wherein it cites ““The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");”
generating, by one or more processors, a graphical representation in a user interface of the state of the selected non-exogenous node. (This amounts to displaying data which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). This is also well-understood, routine and conventional see MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(iv) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 2
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: wherein the activation value for the exogenous nodes is adjustable thru a user interface. This amounts to extra-solution activity of a particular type of data to be used or manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and using generic computer hardware that is a user interface, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination with generic computer hardware to execute the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. wherein the activation value for the exogenous nodes is adjustable thru a user interface. This amounts to extra-solution activity of a particular type of data to be used or manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and using generic computer hardware that is a user interface, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are extra-solution activity in combination of generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 3
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
This is mental process wherein a user drawn each node type in a visually distinct way, for example node type 1 is a circle, node type 2 is a square and node type 3 is a triangle.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim does not recite additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional limitations.
Claim 4 and 15
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 4 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1 and claim 15 inherits the abstract idea of claim 12.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites additional limitations of: the map is iterated a predetermined number of times. (This is extra-solution activity of performing iterative calculations, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination with the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim includes additional limitations of: the map is iterated a predetermined number of times. (This is well understood, routine and conventional see MPE 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) wherein it cites ““The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");”
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are extra-solution activity in combination of generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claims 5 and 16
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 5 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1 and claim 16 inherits the abstract idea of claim 12.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites additional limitations of: the map is iterated until a predetermined number of nodes have reached a convergence state. (This is extra-solution activity of performing iterative calculations, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim includes additional limitations of: the map is iterated until a predetermined number of nodes have reached a convergence state. (This is well understood, routine and conventional see MPE 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) wherein it cites ““The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");”
Claims 6 and 17
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 6 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1 and claim 17 inherits claim 12 abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites additional limitation of: wherein the number of iterations produces substantially identical results for successive iterations. (This is extra-solution activity of performing iterative calculations, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim includes additional limitations of: wherein the number of iterations produces substantially identical results for successive iterations. ((This is extra-solution activity of performing iterative calculations, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Claim 7
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Wherein a predetermined number of word index values are generated and assigning a linguistic term to each word index value. (This is mental process of generating word index values and assigning value to linguistic terms.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites additional limitation of: using one or more processors (This is using generic computer hardware to execute an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim includes additional limitations of: using one or more processors (This is using generic computer hardware to execute an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 8 inherits the abstract idea of claim 7.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites additional limitation of: Wherein the membership function of each linguistic term spans a predetermined range of word index values. (This is extra-solution activity of a data range to used or manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination with the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim includes additional limitations of: Wherein the membership function of each linguistic term spans a predetermined range of word index values. (This is extra-solution activity of a data range to used or manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are extra-solution activity in combination of generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 9
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Wherein the activation values for the set of exogenous nodes, further comprising, adjusting the activation values based on the introduction of new information. (This is a mental process wherein a user changes the activation values based on new information.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites additional limitations of: using one or more processors. (This is using generic computer hardware, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere generic computer hardware in combination with the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim includes additional limitations of: using one or more processors. (This is using generic computer hardware, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 10
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Determining if the adjustment of the activation value of at least one of the exogeneous nodes would affect the iteration of the map, wherein if it is determined that adjustment to the activation value of the at least one exogenous node would not affect the iteration of the map, negating the adjustment to the activation value of the set of the nodes within the map. (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user makes the decision to perform an adjustment if effects or changes the map, otherwise negating the adjustment.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites additional limitations of: using one or more processors. (This is using generic computer hardware, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere generic computer hardware in combination with the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim includes additional limitations of: using one or more processors. (This is using generic computer hardware, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 11
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Generating a modified visual depiction map, wherein nodes only within a predetermined degree of relationship to the non-exogenous node are depicted (this is mental process of creating or drawing a map of the nodes wherein only non-exogenous that are relevant within a predetermined value/degree are shown. Can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites additional limitations of: using one or more processors. (This is using generic computer hardware, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere generic computer hardware in combination with the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim includes additional limitations of: using one or more processors. (This is using generic computer hardware, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 13
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Assigning activation values drawn from appropriate vocabularies of words for a set of exogenous nodes within the plurality of nodes. (this is mental process of a user assigning values to nodes from vocabulary words..)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites does not cite additional elements.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not cite additional elements.
Claim 14
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Manipulating the position of the nodes within the map based on the relationship betweenodes. (this is mental process of a modifying position of nodes based on relationship, can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites does not cite additional elements.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not cite additional elements.
Claim 19
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Manipulating the graphical representation of the convergence state of the non-exogenous node. (This is mental process of a modifying position of nodes based on relationship, can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites the additional elements of receiving a modification through the user interface to exogenous nodes. (the receiving data is extra-solution activity of data collection, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and the use of the user interface is using generic computer hardware, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does recited additional elements of receiving a modification through the user interface to exogenous nodes. (the receiving data is extra-solution activity of data collection, see MPEP 2106.05(g). It is also well understood, routine and convention, see MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”, and the use of the user interface is using generic computer hardware, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard, John T. et al. (“Computing with Words in Fuzzy Cognitive Maps” - hereinafter “Rickard”) in view of LeClerc et al. (“EcoAdapt Working Papers No. 2: iModeler manual: a quick guide for fuzzy cognitive modelling” – hereinafter LeClerc).
In regards to claim 1, Rickard teaches a computer-implemented method for calculating the relationships between concepts and generating a visual depiction of the relationship, comprising:
formulating, by one or more processors, a map of a plurality of nodes, wherein each node corresponds to a concept; (Rickard Pg. 1 Abstract “We extend our previously proposed new structure for fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM)…” Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts….” Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…”)
assigning, by one or more processors, activation values drawn from appropriate vocabularies of words for a set of exogenous nodes within the plurality of nodes; (Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts…At each iteration, the activation level of a node is computed as a weighted sum of the activations of its antecedent nodes at the previous iteration, where the weights are the numerical link strengths….” Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…”. Rickard Pg. 1 Col. 1 “The concepts and link strengths involved in an FCM are usually obtained from a consensus of expert opinion and may involve aggregates of linguistic values…” Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “A useful approach to dealing with this problem is to adopt the CWW paradigm…wherein the node activations and link weights are specified as words from an appropriate vocabulary, each word being represented by an IT2 MF with support on the interval [0,1]…Typically, a 7- or 8- word vocabulary suffices to capture the degree of specificity with which human experts can reliably discriminate between values…”. Also see Rickard Pg. 4 Col. 1 “Our approach to extending the WPM FCM of (1) to the IT2 case (denoted subsequently as the ‘CWW FCM’) can be summarized as follows: 1. Use the iteration specified in (1), but where the crisp values…are replaced with IT2 MFs drawn from a vocabulary of descriptive words…”).)
establishing, by one or more processors, a set of causal relationships between the plurality of nodes, creating a connection between the nodes where a causal relationship is determined, and assigning a linguistic term describing the connection strength to each such connection; (Rickard Pg. 1 Abstract “We extend our previously proposed new structure for fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM)…” Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts….”)
iterating, by one or more processors, the map until a convergence state is reached for each non-exogenous node, wherein the convergence state represents an equilibrium condition between the connected nodes, given the states of the set of exogenous nodes; (Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts…At each iteration, the activation level of a node is computed as a weighted sum of the activations of its antecedent nodes at the previous iteration, where the weights are the numerical link strengths…Typically, certain nodes are held to fixed activation strengths [e.g. claimed “exogenous nodes”], and the activations of the remaining nodes [e.g. claimed “non-exogenous nodes”] are iterated from their initial state to determine a trajectory that is known to result in either a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior…”
The examiner notes that iterating nodes to a known result which is either a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior teaches “iterating, by one or more processors, the map until a convergence state is reached for at least one non-exogenous node, wherein the convergence state represents an equilibrium condition between the connected nodes, given the states of the set of exogenous nodes” where any or all of a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior teaches “a convergence state”.).
assigning, by one or more processors, a linguistic term to the relationships between the nodes based on a relationship between word index values and their corresponding linguistic terms; (Rickard see Table I and Table II note especially how a vocabulary word is matched (e.g. in a relationship) with a vocabulary MF (Membership Function). Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…”)
calculating, by one or more processors, the states of the at least one non-exogenous node based on the linguistic terms associated with all of the connected nodes; and (Rickard Pg. 2 Section II “In this model, the state of the ith node and time k is given by [Eq.1 and Eq. 2]. From (1), we see that the activation of a given node in a WPM FCM at each iteration represents a weighted combination of a WPM of the node’s positively casual inputs and the complement of a WPM of its negatively causal inputs…” Rickard Pg. 4 Col. 1 “Our approach to extending the WPM FCM of (1) to the IT2 case (denoted subsequently as the ‘CWW FCM’) can be summarized as follows: 1. Use the iteration specified in (1), but where the crisp values…are replaced with IT2 MFs drawn from a vocabulary of descriptive words…”).
However Rickard does not appear to explicitly disclose manipulating, by one or more processors, the plurality of nodes based on the set of exogenous nodes and a set of non-exogenous nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes are modified to visually indicate the node type; repositioning, by one or more processors, the plurality of nodes in the map; and generating, by one or more processors, a graphical representation in a user interface of the state of the selected non-exogenous node.
LeClerc teaches generating, by one or more processors, a graphical representation in a user interface of the state of the selected non-exogenous node (LeClerc see the screen shots on Pgs. 16-19, 22-25, 27, 31, 36-40, 50-59 all of which teach “displaying, by the one or more processors, the map within a user interface”.), manipulating, by one or more processors, the plurality of nodes based on the set of exogenous nodes and a set of non-exogenous nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes are modified to visually indicate the node type and repositioning, by one or more processors, the plurality of nodes in the map. (LeClerc Pg. 28 “you can also use colors, shapes, and description texts…through the properties dialogue of connections and factors. It is very user to allocate the same colors to factors you want later to compare within the insight-matrix…” Pg. 30 “You may give factors that represent measures, goals, risks, resources, etc. the same color so it becomes easier to compare them in the insight matrix. You can select a subset of factors to display in the insight matrix…” The examiner notes that LeClerc providing a properties dialogue where a user can use color or shapes to indicate what type of node (e.g. factor) it is teaches the claim language. Also the same section teaches moving the position of the factors and saving the new locations, this it teaches reposition nodes of the map.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the construction and calculation of a fuzzy cognitive map as taught by Rickard modified with the color and shapes manipulation of nodes as taught by LeClerc because “…this is very useful as many models become very huge and difficult to read: you can literally tell a story around a factor that your viewers can follow far better than it would be possible if you had shown all of the connections at once…” (LeClerc Pg. 27).
In regards to claim 2, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer- implemented method of claim 1, wherein the activation value for the exogenous nodes is adjustable through the user interface. (Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Typically, certain nodes are held to fixed activation strengths [e.g. claimed “exogenous nodes”], and the activations of the remaining nodes [e.g. claimed “non-exogenous nodes”] are iterated from their initial state to determine a trajectory that is known to result in either a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior…”, thus the non-exogenous nodes activation values are adjustable.)
In regards to claim 3, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer- implemented method of claim 1, wherein each node type is depicted in a visually distinct manner from the other node types in the user interface. (LeClerc Pg. 28 “you can also use colors, shapes, and description texts…through the properties dialogue of connections and factors. It is very user to allocate the same colors to factors you want later to compare within the insight-matrix…” Pg. 30 “You may give factors that represent measures, goals, risks, resources, etc. the same color so it becomes easier to compare them in the insight matrix. You can select a subset of factors to display in the insight matrix…” The examiner notes that LeClerc providing a properties dialogue where a user can use color or shapes to indicate what type of node (e.g. factor) it is teaches the claim language, as different factors would have different colors or shapes.)
In regards to claim 4, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer- implemented method of claim 1, wherein the map is iterated a predetermined number of times. (Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts…At each iteration, the activation level of a node is computed as a weighted sum of the activations of its antecedent nodes at the previous iteration, where the weights are the numerical link strengths… Typically, Certain nodes are held to fixed activation strengths [e.g. claimed “exogenous nodes”], and the activations of the remaining nodes [e.g. claimed “non-exogenous nodes”] are iterated from their initial state to determine a trajectory that is known to result in either a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior…”. The examiner notes that iterating a map to determine a trajectory that is known to result in a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior teaches “where the map is iterated a predetermined number of times” (e.g. a period limit cycle, when the limit is reached, the map stops iterating).).
In regards to claim 5, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer- implemented method of claim 1, wherein the map is iterated until a predetermined number of nodes have reached a convergence state. (Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts…At each iteration, the activation level of a node is computed as a weighted sum of the activations of its antecedent nodes at the previous iteration, where the weights are the numerical link strengths…Typically, certain nodes are held to fixed activation strengths [e.g. claimed “exogenous nodes”], and the activations of the remaining nodes [e.g. claimed “non-exogenous nodes”] are iterated from their initial state to determine a trajectory that is known to result in either a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior…”. The examiner notes that iterating a map to determine a trajectory that is known to result in a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior teaches “wherein the map is iterated until a predetermined number of nodes have reach a convergence state”. The examiner additionally notes that any or all of a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior teaches “a convergence state”.).
In regards to claim 6, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer- implemented method of claim 4, wherein the number of iterations produces substantially identical results for successive iterations. (Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts…At each iteration, the activation level of a node is computed as a weighted sum of the activations of its antecedent nodes at the previous iteration, where the weights are the numerical link strengths…Typically, certain nodes are held to fixed activation strengths [e.g. claimed “exogenous nodes”], and the activations of the remaining nodes [e.g. claimed “non-exogenous nodes”] are iterated from their initial state to determine a trajectory that is known to result in either a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior…”. The examiner notes that iterating a map to determine a trajectory that is known to result in a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior teaches “wherein the number of iterations produces substantially identical results for successive iterations”. To further clarify, a person of ordinary skill in the art would infer that if, for example, Rickard’s FCM was iterated to a fixed point or a period limit cycle, any further iterations of the FCM would result in the same states that give the results of a fixed point or a period limit cycle (e.g. substantially identical results).).
In regards to claim 7, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer- implemented method of claim 1, wherein a predetermined number of word index values are generated, and further comprising, assigning, by one or more processors, a linguistic term to each word index value. (Rickard see Table I and Table II note especially how a vocabulary word is matched (e.g. in a relationship) with a vocabulary MF (Membership Function). Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…”).
In regards to claim 8, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer- implemented method of claim 7, wherein the membership function of each linguistic term spans a predetermined range of word index values. (Rickard see Table I and Table II note especially how a vocabulary word is matched (e.g. in a relationship) with a vocabulary MF (Membership Function). Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…” Rickard Pg. 5 Col. 2 “Recalling that [Computing With Words] CWW [Fuzzy Cognitive Map] FCM index values ranging from 1 to 7 correspond to scalar WPM FCM activations ranging from 0 to 1, with an index of 4 approximating the mid-range scalar value of 0.5.”)
In regards to claim 11, Rickard in view of LeClerc disclose the computer- implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, generating, by one or more processors, a modified visual depiction of the map, wherein nodes only within a predetermined degree of relationship to the non-exogenous node are depicted in the user interface. (Leclerc Pg. 27 "To put the current central factor back to the middle of the screen you can click/tap of this icon you will notice that clicking/tapping on it the model shows just one level of connections of the central factor. Another click, shows two levels and a third click shows all connections. The examiner notes that click a button a number of times to show different levels (e.g. predetermined degree of relationship) teaches "Program instructions to manipulate the map to show the at one non-exogenous node and a predetermined number of exogenous nodes based on a predetermined degree of relationship.".).
In regards to claim 12, Rickard discloses a computer program product for creating a fuzzy cognitive map and calculating the relationship between concepts, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to:
generate a map of a plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes comprises at least one non-exogenous node and a set of exogenous nodes; (Rickard Pg. 1 Abstract “We extend our previously proposed new structure for fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM)…” Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts….” Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…”)
assign linguistic activation values for the set of exogenous nodes; (Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts…At each iteration, the activation level of a node is computed as a weighted sum of the activations of its antecedent nodes at the previous iteration, where the weights are the numerical link strengths….” Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…”. Rickard Pg. 1 Col. 1 “The concepts and link strengths involved in an FCM are usually obtained from a consensus of expert opinion and may involve aggregates of linguistic values…” Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “A useful approach to dealing with this problem is to adopt the CWW paradigm…wherein the node activations and link weights are specified as words from an appropriate vocabulary, each word being represented by an IT2 MF with support on the interval [0,1]…Typically, a 7- or 8- word vocabulary suffices to capture the degree of specificity with which human experts can reliably discriminate between values…”. Also see Rickard Pg. 4 Col. 1 “Our approach to extending the WPM FCM of (1) to the IT2 case (denoted subsequently as the ‘CWW FCM’) can be summarized as follows: 1. Use the iteration specified in (1), but where the crisp values…are replaced with IT2 MFs drawn from a vocabulary of descriptive words…”).)
apply a set of causal relationships between the plurality of nodes, wherein the causal relationships are shown in the map and the type of causal relationship is shown; (Rickard Pg. 1 Abstract “We extend our previously proposed new structure for fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM)…” Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts….”)
iterate the map until a convergence state is reached for the non-exogenous node, wherein the convergence state represents an equilibrium condition between the nodes for the given causal relationships, wherein the equilibrium condition is dependent upon the assigned activation values for the set of exogenous nodes; (Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts…At each iteration, the activation level of a node is computed as a weighted sum of the activations of its antecedent nodes at the previous iteration, where the weights are the numerical link strengths…Typically, certain nodes are held to fixed activation strengths [e.g. claimed “exogenous nodes”], and the activations of the remaining nodes [e.g. claimed “non-exogenous nodes”] are iterated from their initial state to determine a trajectory that is known to result in either a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior…”. The examiner notes that iterating nodes to a known result which is either a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior teaches “iterating, by one or more processors, the map until a convergence state is reached for at least one non-exogenous node, wherein the convergence state represents an equilibrium condition between the connected nodes, given the states of the set of exogenous nodes” where any or all of a fixed point, a period limit cycle, an aperiodic attractor or chaotic behavior teaches “a convergence state”.).
assign a linguistic term to the relationship between the nodes based on a relationship between word index values and their corresponding linguistic terms; (Rickard see Table I and Table II note especially how a vocabulary word is matched (e.g. in a relationship) with a vocabulary MF (Membership Function). Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…”)
calculate the states of the non-exogenous node based on the linguistic terms associated with the connected nodes; and (Rickard Pg. 2 Section II “In this model, the state of the ith node and time k is given by [Eq.1 and Eq. 2]. From (1), we see that the activation of a given node in a WPM FCM at each iteration represents a weighted combination of a WPM of the node’s positively casual inputs and the complement of a WPM of its negatively causal inputs…” Rickard Pg. 4 Col. 1 “Our approach to extending the WPM FCM of (1) to the IT2 case (denoted subsequently as the ‘CWW FCM’) can be summarized as follows: 1. Use the iteration specified in (1), but where the crisp values…are replaced with IT2 MFs drawn from a vocabulary of descriptive words…”).
However, Rickard does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the node types are visually distinct from one another; select a degree of relationship from the non-exogenous node, wherein all nodes beyond the selected degree of relationship are hidden in the map; and generate a graphical representation of the state of the non-exogenous node.
LeClerc teaches generate a graphical representation of the state of the non-exogenous node. (LeClerc see the screen shots on Pgs. 16-19, 22-25, 27, 31, 36-40, 50-59 all of which teach “displaying, by the one or more processors, the map within a user interface”.), select a degree of relationship from the non-exogenous node, wherein all nodes beyond the selected degree of relationship are hidden in the map; (Leclerc Pg. 27 "To put the current central factor back to the middle of the screen you can click/tap of this icon you will notice that clicking/tapping on it the model shows just one level of connections of the central factor. Another click, shows two levels and a third click shows all connections. The examiner notes that click a button a number of times to show different levels (e.g. predetermined degree of relationship) teaches "Program instructions to manipulate the map to show the at one non-exogenous node and a predetermined number of exogenous nodes based on a predetermined degree of relationship wherein any node not in the degree of relationship is not shown and thus hidden.) and wherein the node types are visually distinct from one another;. (LeClerc Pg. 28 “you can also use colors, shapes, and description texts…through the properties dialogue of connections and factors. It is very user to allocate the same colors to factors you want later to compare within the insight-matrix…” Pg. 30 “You may give factors that represent measures, goals, risks, resources, etc. the same color so it becomes easier to compare them in the insight matrix. You can select a subset of factors to display in the insight matrix…” The examiner notes that LeClerc providing a properties dialogue where a user can use color or shapes to indicate what type of node (e.g. factor) wherein each color and shape is distinct to node type. Also the same section teaches moving the position of the factors and saving the new locations, this it teaches reposition nodes of the map.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the construction and calculation of a fuzzy cognitive map as taught by Rickard modified with the color and shapes manipulation of nodes as taught by LeClerc because “…this is very useful as many models become very huge and difficult to read: you can literally tell a story around a factor that your viewers can follow far better than it would be possible if you had shown all of the connections at once…” (LeClerc Pg. 27).
In regards to claim 13, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer program of claim 12, further comprising, assigning activation values drawn from appropriate vocabularies of words for a set of exogenous nodes within the plurality of nodes. Rickard Pg. 1 Section 1. “Fuzzy cognitive maps…are fuzzy signed di-graphs whose nodes correspond to high-level descriptive concepts and whose link strengths represent causal influences (positive or negative) between concepts…At each iteration, the activation level of a node is computed as a weighted sum of the activations of its antecedent nodes at the previous iteration, where the weights are the numerical link strengths….” Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “Consider an FCM whose node activation levels and link strengths are described by vocabulary words. In general, the ith word describing the activation level for a given node is represented by an IT2 MF…corresponding to a vocabulary word…where V is the vocabulary. Similarly, a positively or negatively causal link from node i to node j (where such exists) is described by a word and its corresponding IT2 MF from a vocabulary describing link strengths…”. Rickard Pg. 1 Col. 1 “The concepts and link strengths involved in an FCM are usually obtained from a consensus of expert opinion and may involve aggregates of linguistic values…” Rickard Pg. 3 Col. 1 “A useful approach to dealing with this problem is to adopt the CWW paradigm…wherein the node activations and link weights are specified as words from an appropriate vocabulary, each word being represented by an IT2 MF with support on the interval [0,1]…Typically, a 7- or 8- word vocabulary suffices to capture the degree of specificity with which human experts can reliably discriminate between values…”. Also see Rickard Pg. 4 Col. 1 “Our approach to extending the WPM FCM of (1) to the IT2 case (denoted subsequently as the ‘CWW FCM’) can be summarized as follows: 1. Use the iteration specified in (1), but where the crisp values…are replaced with IT2 MFs drawn from a vocabulary of descriptive words…”).)
In regards to claim 14, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer program of claim 12, further comprising, manipulating the position of the nodes within the map based on the relationships between the nodes. (LeClerc Pg. 28 teaches moving the position of the factors and saving the new locations, this it teaches reposition/manipulating nodes of the map.).
In regards to claim 15, it is the computer program product embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations and thus rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 16, it is the computer program product embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations and thus rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 17, it is the computer program product embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations and thus rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 18, it is the system embodiment of claim 12 with similar limitations and thus rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 12.
In regards to claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claim 14 with similar limitations and thus rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 14. The only difference is that claim 19 cites receiving a modification through the user interface, while in claim 14 manipulating the position is the received modification.
In regards to claim 20, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations and thus rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard, John T. et al. (“Computing with Words in Fuzzy Cognitive Maps” - hereinafter “Rickard”) in view of LeClerc et al. (“EcoAdapt Working Papers No. 2: iModeler manual: a quick guide for fuzzy cognitive modelling” – hereinafter LeClerc) and further in view of Perusich, Karl et al. (“Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps as an Intelligent Analyst” - hereinafter “Perusich”).
With respect to Claim 9, Rickard in view of LeClerc discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the activation values for the set of exogenous nodes, further comprising, adjusting, by one or more processors, the activation values based on the introduction of new information.
Perusich teaches wherein the activation values for the set of exogenous nodes, further comprising, adjusting, by one or more processors, the activation values based on the introduction of new information (Perusich Pg. 11 Col. 1 “To assess the situation, known information in the form of nodal states is applied to the map and an output, in this case the local threat level, is inferred. As new information becomes available, i.e. additional or different nodal state values, the map can be updated and a new inference made.” Perusich Pg. 13 Col. 1 “These nodes will act as sources of ‘causality’ in much the same way that voltage and current sources act as sources of excitation in electrical circuits. The values of these ‘source’ nodes remain constant throughout the inference process. Note that the source nodes can be located anywhere in the map and can change as new information becomes available.”. The examiner notes that Perusich’s “source nodes” that have a constant value during inference teach the claimed “set of exogenous nodes”. Additionally, changing the source nodes (e.g. by “…additional or different nodal state values…”) teaches “…adjusting, by one or more processors, the activation values based on the introduction of new information”.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the CWW FCM as taught by Rickard modified with the adjustment of exogenous nodes (e.g. source nodes) as taught by Perusich because this adjustment of values would allow the FCM to consider different scenarios based upon a changing input (e.g. adjustment of exogenous nodes); in turn this would give greater variety to the situations the FCM can infer (Perusich Pgs. 13-15 note different input values)
In regards to claim 10, Rickard in view of LeClerc in view of Perusich disclose the computer- implemented method of claim 9, further comprising, determining, by one or more processors, if the adjustment of the activation value of at least one of the exogenous nodes would affect the iteration of the map, (Perusich Pg. 14 Col. 2 “A second point to note is that not all of the map is necessarily used to make an inference. How much of the map actually gets activated is dependent on the number and location of the source nodes [e.g. exogenous nodes]. In this map, Security Office Personnel Attack [Emphasis in original] is not a source so several of the nodes that would result from it are not active. In essence, this is saying that information about this node is not necessary for inferring a state for the output given the information encapsulated in the other nodes…”. The examiner notes that determining that a particular source node does not affect the inference output teaches “determining, by one or more processors, if the adjustment of the activation value of at least one of the exogenous nodes would affect the iteration of the map”.) wherein if it is determined that the adjustment to the activation value of the at least one of the exogenous nodes would not affect the iteration of the map, negating, by one or more processors, the adjustment to the activation values of the set of nodes within the map. (Perusich Pg. 14 Col. 2 “A second point to note is that not all of the map is necessarily used to make an inference. How much of the map actually gets activated is dependent on the number and location of the source nodes [e.g. exogenous nodes]. In this map, Security Office Personnel Attack is not a source so several of the nodes that would result from it are not active. In essence, this is saying that information about this node is not necessary for inferring a state for the output given the information encapsulated in the other nodes…”. The examiner notes that because the source node (e.g. exogenous node) is not necessary to make an inference and because of that the nodes that result from it (the source node) are not active teaches “wherein if it is determined that the adjustment to the activation value of the at least one of the exogenous nodes would not affect the iteration of the map, negating, by one or more processors, the adjustment to the activation values of the set of nodes within the map”.).)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULINHO E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached at 571-270-3169. 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.
/PAULINHO E SMITH/PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 2127
