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 .
Examiner’s Note on Resubmissions
Applicant submitted a specification and preliminary specification amendments on 4/18/2024. Applicant also submitted a claim set and preliminary claim amendments on 4/18/2024. However, a notification to file corrected application papers was sent to Applicant on 3/3/2026 because the specification including abstract and claims were not consecutively numbered starting with page 1. In response, Applicant resubmitted the original unamended specification and the original unamended claims, with corrected page numbering, on 3/13/2026. This could be interpreted as making an improper amendment back to the original specification and originals claims. Examiner does not believe that this was the intent. Therefore, for clarity of record, Examiner is explicitly entering the newly numbered specification including abstract and claims as well as the original preliminary amendments to the specification and the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 4/18/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because NPL reference #3 is illegible. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein concerning this reference has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 17 recites, “The feature quantity, that is, the viewpoint is an item considered at the time of decision-making.” The phrasing including “that is, the viewpoint” is unclear.
Paragraph 41 recites, “In Fig. 4, in an objective function X, the weighting coefficient of the feature quantity A is smaller than the weighting coefficient of the feature quantity D. On the other hand, in Fig. 4, in an objective function Y, the weighting coefficient of the feature quantity D is smaller than the weighting coefficient of the feature quantity A.” Comparing this explanation to Figure 4, it appears this description is backwards. For example, in Function X, A appears larger than D.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Method claim 3 recites the following contingent limitation(s): wherein, in the outputting, when a difference between the weighting coefficients of the feature quantities in the trade-off relationship is equal to or greater than a threshold value, information indicating that the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value is output. The limitation(s) is/are contingent because when a difference between the weighting coefficients of the feature quantities in the trade-off relationship is equal to or greater than a threshold value. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires when a difference between the weighting coefficients of the feature quantities in the trade-off relationship is less than a threshold value. Since it can be interpreted to not activate one (or more) condition(s), the method claim thereby represents a broader scope than other identical claims from different statutory categories. See MPEP 2111.04(II) for more information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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. Exemplary claim 1 recites outputting the weighting coefficients acquired for the plurality of objective functions in a comparable manner. The phrase a comparable manner is indefinite because what is comparable to one person may not be comparable to another. Furthermore, the original disclosure does not explain what a comparable manner is.
Claim 3 recites information indicating that the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value. The term information is confusingly similar to the previous introduced term relationship information in claim 2. It is unclear if this is the same element, a different element, or related elements.
Claim 4 recites information indicating that there is the trade-off relationship. The term information was previously introduced in claim 3. It is unclear if this is the same element, a different element, or related elements.
Claim 6 recites the weighting coefficients are output in a comparable manner. The phrase a comparable manner is indefinite because what is comparable to one person may not be comparable to another. Furthermore, the original disclosure does not explain what a comparable manner is. Additionally, this term was previously introduced in claim 1. It is unclear if this is the same element, a different element, or related elements.
Claim 7 recites information indicating the state. The term information was previously introduced in claim 6. It is unclear if this is the same element, a different element, or related elements.
For this reason, the above listed claims are rejected for containing this language or being dependent on a claim that contains this language.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavazipour et al. (hereinafter Shavazipour), Visualizations for decision support in scenario-based multiobjective optimization in view of Kobayashi et al. (hereinafter Kobayashi), An Estimation Method of the Range of Weighting Coefficients where the Solution Prefered by an Operator is Optimal in Multi Multi-Objective Optimization.
Regarding Claim 1, Shavazipour discloses a visualization method, implemented by a computer, comprising:
acquiring, for each of a plurality of different objective functions [“where k ≥ 2 is the number of objective functions” §2.1 ¶1], a weighting coefficient for each of a plurality of feature quantities [“a vector of n decision variables” §2.1 ¶1]; and
outputting the weighting coefficients acquired for the plurality of objective functions in a comparable manner [“many ways to visualize high-dimensional data” §2.3 ¶1; “visualizing trade-offs between objectives” §2.3 ¶1; “Heatmap” §2.3.1],
wherein the weighting coefficient for each of the plurality of feature quantities indicates a degree of influence of the feature quantity on a solution of each of the plurality of objective functions.
However, Shavazipour fails to explicitly disclose a weighting coefficient; and
wherein the weighting coefficient for each of the plurality of feature quantities indicates a degree of influence of the feature quantity on a solution of each of the plurality of objective functions].
Kobayashi discloses a weighting coefficient [“To solve such a problem, for example, a weight method, where weighting coefficients are set for each purpose and the problem is solved by solving the sum total, is used. Depending on the weighting coefficients, which mean importance degree of these objectives, the planned results are significantly different.” §I ¶3];
wherein the weighting coefficient for each of the plurality of feature quantities indicates a degree of influence of the feature quantity on a solution of each of the plurality of objective functions [“Depending on the weighting coefficients, which mean importance degree of these objectives, the planned results are significantly different.” §I ¶3].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shavazipour and Kobayashi before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Shavazipour to incorporate the concentration on the weighing coefficients of objective functions of Kobayashi.
Given the advantage of finding optimal solutions, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 2, Shavazipour and Kobayashi disclose the visualization method according to claim 1. Shavazipour further discloses further comprising
acquiring relationship information indicating feature quantities in a trade-off relationship among the plurality of feature quantities [“several so-called Pareto optimal ones with different trade-offs” §1 ¶1],
wherein, in the outputting, based on the acquired relationship information, the weighting coefficients for the plurality of feature quantities are output side by side, for each of the plurality of objective functions, in such a way that weighting coefficients of feature quantities in the trade-off relationship among the plurality of feature quantities are adjacent to each other [“heatmaps (in integration with a small multiple design 3) can help a DM in comparing the objective values of quite many solutions in different scenarios and choose the preferred one.” §4.2 ¶5; “Representing multiple charts/graphs side by side or in a matrix-based form is known as small multiples in multi-dimensional data and information visualization.” pg. 7, footnote 3].
Regarding Claim 3, Shavazipour and Kobayashi disclose the visualization method according to claim 2. Shavazipour further discloses wherein, in the outputting, when a difference between the weighting coefficients of the feature quantities in the trade-off relationship is equal to or greater than a threshold value, information indicating that the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value is output [“Moreover, solutions 1–3 show the same trade-off across scenarios and across objectives: (1) solutions in scenario s3 dominate the corresponding solutions in s2 which dominate the ones in s1; and (2) moving from solution 1 to solution 3 implies, in every scenario, trading off, i.e., losses in f 2 for improvements in f 1. On the other hand, trade-offs are not so obvious in the case of solutions 4 (4) and 5 (5). In this case, a DM may compare trade-offs between objectives in different scenarios by visualizing the SB-EAF differences between solutions in that specific region, e.g., as shown in Fig. 4 for solutions 4 and 5, and choose the preferred one to answer Question 1.” §5 ¶¶5-6; Fig. 3; Examiner Note: This claim recites a contingent limitation. However, an interpretation when a difference is less than a threshold exists. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, prior art would not be required to be applied to this limitation to fully reject the claim. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the current art rejection has been applied.].
Regarding Claim 4, Shavazipour and Kobayashi disclose the visualization method according to claim 2. Shavazipour further discloses wherein, in the outputting, information indicating that there is the trade-off relationship is output [“visualizing trade-offs between objectives” §2.3 ¶1].
Regarding Claim 5, Shavazipour and Kobayashi disclose the visualization method according to claim 1. Shavazipour further discloses wherein, in the outputting, a difference between the weighting coefficients for the plurality of feature quantities in the plurality of objective functions is output [“many ways to visualize high-dimensional data” §2.3 ¶1; “visualizing trade-offs between objectives” §2.3 ¶1; “Heatmap” §2.3.1].
Regarding Claim 6, Shavazipour and Kobayashi disclose the visualization method according to claim 1. Shavazipour further discloses further comprising
acquiring, for each of the plurality of objective functions, a solution obtained based on the objective function [“In environmental modeling (e.g., water resource planning and management), multidimensional visualizations like glyphs, parallel coordinate plots, and scatter plot matrices have been used for modeling and/or scenario analysis in which the objective values of generated solutions, obtained from different models or scenarios, are evaluated and compared to find a suitable model and/or robust solutions.” §2.3 ¶4; Fig. Table 2] to which information indicating a predetermined state is given [“The term scenario is used in the literature for various purposes, but usually, it refers to a framework to capture uncertainty in the absence of reliable probability distributions.” §1 ¶2],
wherein, in the outputting, for each of the plurality of objective functions, the weighting coefficients are output in a comparable manner and the acquired solution is output [“many ways to visualize high-dimensional data” §2.3 ¶1; “visualizing trade-offs between objectives” §2.3 ¶1; “Heatmap” §2.3.1; Fig. 2; Table 2].
Regarding Claim 7, Shavazipour and Kobayashi disclose the visualization method according to claim 6. Shavazipour further discloses wherein, in the acquisition of the solution, for each of a plurality of states, a solution obtained based on the objective function to which information indicating the state is given is acquired for each of the plurality of objective functions [“In environmental modeling (e.g., water resource planning and management), multidimensional visualizations like glyphs, parallel coordinate plots, and scatter plot matrices have been used for modeling and/or scenario analysis in which the objective values of generated solutions, obtained from different models or scenarios, are evaluated and compared to find a suitable model and/or robust solutions.” §2.3 ¶4; Fig. Table 2; “The term scenario is used in the literature for various purposes, but usually, it refers to a framework to capture uncertainty in the absence of reliable probability distributions.” §1 ¶2], and
in the outputting, the solution acquired for each of the plurality of objective functions is output for each of the plurality of states [“many ways to visualize high-dimensional data” §2.3 ¶1; “visualizing trade-offs between objectives” §2.3 ¶1; “Heatmap” §2.3.1; Fig. 2; Table 2].
Claims 9-11 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-2, 6 respectively.
Claims 13, 15-16 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-2, 6 respectively.
Claim(s) 8, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavazipour and Kobayashi, in view of Uchibe et al. (hereinafter Uchibe), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0147949.
Regarding Claim 8, Shavazipour and Kobayashi disclose the visualization method according to claim 1.
However, Shavazipour fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of objective functions is an objective function generated by inverse reinforcement learning.
Uchibe discloses wherein each of the plurality of objective functions is an objective function generated by inverse reinforcement learning [“inverse reinforcement learning that can infer the objective function” ¶119].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shavazipour, Kobayashi, and Uchibe before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate the inverse reinforcement learning to generate the objective functions.
Given the advantage of modeling a better function than generating it manually, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claim(s) above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim(s), typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Additionally, any claim amendments for any reason should include remarks indicating clear support in the originally filed specification.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c). Additionally when amending, in their remarks Applicant should particularly cite to the supporting paragraphs in the original disclosure for the amendments.
The following references were found during the examination of this patent application and were found to be relevant to patentability. Applicant is advised to review these references prior to responding to this Office action.
Blasco et al. (Interactive tool for analyzing multiobjective optimization results with Level Diagrams) discloses some of the main features of an interactive tool for multiobjective Pareto front and set analysis.
Simionescu et al. (NEW CONCEPTS IN GRAPHIC VISUALIZATION OF OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS) discloses a method of inspecting the design space of multivariable objective functions using 2D or 3D diagrams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H BEJCEK II whose telephone number is (571)270-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michelle T. Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2148
/MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights