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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the word and details are not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as the specification is silent and without even a most basic components modules and components claimed.
Here checking suitability, process for handling of public health and emergencies through crisis control, response and mitigation system (C2RMS)for performing a data transformation, for performing machine learning operations, for performing KPI analytics, for performing ML workbench analytics, for performing cognitive intelligence, for performing canned analytics, for performing custom analytics, for performing analytical engine compliance, for performing model analysis, for performing actionable insights, for performing advisories for stake holders across all functions and domains for infrastructure, for performing technological suggestions, for performing actionable insights are not described in described in the specification.
For testing models to determine model accuracy level (MAL) and allowing passage
through model evaluation pipeline for MAL> 50%;
evaluating scope for improvement ratio (SIR) and determining output results for SIR
< 5%; and
publishing and visualizing the output results.
wherein the collaborative super diligence includes
process for handling of public health and emergencies through crisis control, response and
mitigation system (C2RMS).
wherein the core learner module includes user intervention, and user defined analytical modules.
wherein activities under standard KPI analytics comprises carrying out pre-operations by arranging ML based analytics on industry standard KPis according to relevance to respective infrastructure such as smart cities, data centers, and industries.
wherein the core analytical engine module includes selection of specific type of suitable engine from an array of algorithmic programs and reinforced module analysis engine.
wherein analyzing models further comprises providing integrated analytics solution wherein information specifics from diverse
operational equipment is extracted to yield actionable insights and advisories for stakeholders
across all functions and domains for infrastructure such as smart cities, data centers,
urban/rural infrastructure, campuses, sea/air-ports, rail networks, energy/utilities, or
industries.
wherein the analytical engine for canned comprises of: model definition; providing system Input for training; comparative analytics to compliance standards/benchmark values; predict and harness prescriptions to improvements and; carrying out multiple iterations to fine tune the model to get the optimal and accurate values.
wherein the analytical engine for compliance
comprises of: model definition; providing system input of training information specifics;
"What-if' simulators; comparative analytics t<? past models; predictive models for future
values; and multiple iterations to fine tune the model.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 45-47 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.
Claim limitation “module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Module is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.
Here, the term “module” is used to recite “an analyzing module” that itself is described in only functional terms, i.e., “for receiving data, for checking suitability, for performing a data transformation, for performing machine learning operations, for performing KPI analytics, for performing ML workbench analytics, for performing cognitive intelligence, for performing canned analytics, for performing custom analytics, for performing analytical engine compliance, for performing model analysis, for performing actionable insights, for performing advisories for stake holders across all functions and domains for infrastructure, for performing technological suggestions, for performing actionable insights.
Here, the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification is not provided.
Claims 45-47 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.
suitability for input to cognitive Intelligence is a relative term / term of degree.
ML workbench is not defined.
Compliance standard analytics is a term of degree.
Analytical engine canned is not defined.
Analytical engine custom is not defined
Check for suitability for input to cognitive Intelligence before storing it in Big Data or cloud, the nonsuitable data passes through a system to undergo data transformation is indefinite suitable is a term of degree. Moreover, in Big Data is a relative term and it is not clear how or it is distinguishable from the cloud.
In claim 46 all functions and domains for infrastructure such as in smart cities, data centers, urban/rural infrastructure, campuses, sea/air-ports, rail networks, energy/utilities, or industries is vague and indefinite.
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 35-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1.
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus.
Step 2.
The claims are directed to abstract idea of . cognitive interoperable source agnostic analysis.
The representative (read in the light most favorable to the applicant and notwithstanding the intended use language) comprises the following steps:
receiving data from heterogeneous agnostic sources having permissible access and
security protocol clearance to undergo sequential processes comprising:
selecting user domain; selecting data source;
extracting data;
checking suitability for cognitive intelligence operations;
storing data informatics in cloud;
and cleansing non-suitable data, extracting, transforming and loading before being stored in Big Data for further processing;
analyzing models to initiate machine learning (ML) using a core learner module and a
core analytical engine module,
the core learner module consisting of standard KPI analytics, ML workbench and compliance standard analytics processes,
and the core analytical engine module consisting of analytical engine for canned, analytical engine custom, and analytical engine compliance processes;
testing models to determine model accuracy level (MAL) and allowing passage
through model evaluation pipeline for MAL> 50%; evaluating scope for improvement ratio (SIR) and determining output results for SIR < 5%;
and publishing and visualizing the output results.
3) receiving data from heterogeneous agnostic sources such as live streams, flat files, protocols, images and multimedia, through permissible access and security protocol clearance, the system
undertakes: user domain selection; data source selection; data extraction;
4) checks suitability for input to cognitive Intelligence before storing it in Big Data or cloud, the nonsuitable data passes through a system to undergo data transformation;
5) machine learning comprising a core learning module and
a core analytical engine module, the core learning module consisting of system for KPI
analytics, ML workbench and compliance standard analytics; and the core analytical engine
module consists of system for analytical engine canned, analytical engine custom and
analytical engine compliance; and
a results publication and results visualization system.
Steps 1-5 set forth above fall within methods of organizing human behavior and thus, certain
activity between a person and a computer "certain methods of organizing human activity" such that the claim recites a combination of abstract ideas, such as fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, mitigating risk, and mental processes, any and all of which have been found to be patent ineligible.
Steps (A)-(H) represent pre and post solution activity.
The representative claim does not recite technological implementation details or “a particular way of programming or designing the software . . . , but instead merely claim[s] the resulting system[].” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 42 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016). generically recited “hardware processor of a computer” are merely generic recitations of modules apparently programmed, in an unspecified manner, to perform various well-known, routine, and conventional functions, i.e., data processing and analysis. As the specification lack any teaching that amounts to a written description of the components, broadly read the components may include any hardware, software, other logic, or
combination of the preceding for reaching their results.
Step 2A-2.
The components in addition to the abstract idea are (read in the light most favorable) to the applicant are the cloud, core learner module, core analytical engine module and a testing modules
Under Prong 2, we “evaluate integration into a practical application by: (a) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added). Thus, Prong 2 focuses on the additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
The Supreme Court is unambiguous that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23. Thus, merely performing the abstract idea on a the modules (which read on a generic processor) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In view of the above, under prong one of the two-prong test, the representative claim recites at least the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity; and, under prong two, additional elements in do not “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Step 2B
The additional elements are set forth above. Under USPTO Step 2B, we consider “whether an additional element or combination of elements . . . [a]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
A claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”). Thus, allegations that something is “unconventional or non-routine” are only material if they address items
outside the abstract idea. Here, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea are generic modules which the case law confirms is insufficient for eligibility under § 101. E.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23.
As to the dependent claims the additional components include generic and IOT devices, mitigation system (C2RMS), intervention, and user defined analytical modules, smart cities, data centers, and Industries, algorithmic programs and reinforced module analysis engine, diverse operational equipment are generically cited and do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention for the reasons above.
Considered as an ordered combination, the generically recited modules and components add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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 Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0580. 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.
RICHARD C. WEISBERGER
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693