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 .
Status of the Application
This is a Non-Final Action in response to the claims submitted on 06/24/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending and examined herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an information acquisition unit”, “a keyword extraction unit”, “an analysis target trend data generation unit”, “a specific keyword determination unit” in claim 1, and “a storage processing unit” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See paragraphs [0014-0015]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 disclose the limitation “the perspective” in line 11. However it is unclear if the limitation is the same as “a predetermined perspective”, as previously introduced in line 6, or if the Applicant is introducing a new limitation. Applicant is reminded to keep consistency among the terminology in order to avoid indefiniteness. For examination purposes the claim is interpreting the limitations as being the same.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 disclose the limitation “the enactment” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation was not properly introduced making the limitation indefinite, thereby the scope of the limitation is unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “which is a keyword related to a past case that led to an enactment”
Claims 2, 7 and 12 disclose the limitation “the analysis target keywords” in line 5. However it is unclear if the limitation is the same as “an analysis target keyword”, as previously introduced in line 7 of claims 1, 6 and 11, from which claims 2, 7and 12 respectively depends, or if the Applicant is introducing a new limitation. Applicant is reminded to keep consistency among the terminology in order to avoid indefiniteness. For examination purposes the claim is interpreting the limitations as being the same.
Claims 3, 8, 13 disclose the limitations “the predetermined perspectives” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation was not properly introduced making the limitation indefinite, thereby the scope of the limitation is unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “a plurality of predetermined perspectives”.
Claims 3, 8, 13 disclose the limitations “a plurality of the predetermined perspectives”, “a plurality of the perspectives”, “the plurality of perspectives”. Applicant is reminded to keep consistency among the terminology in order to avoid indefiniteness. For examination purposes the claim is interpreting the limitations as being the same.
Claims 3, 8 and 13 disclose the limitation “the first perspective” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation was not properly introduced making the limitation indefinite, thereby the scope of the limitation is unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “the plurality of perspectives include a first perspective”.
Claims 4, 9 and 14 disclose the limitation “the degree of similarity” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation was not properly introduced making the limitation indefinite, thereby the scope of the limitation is unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “in the case that a degree of similarity between the past case trend data and the analysis target trend data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree threshold value”.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Claims 1, 6 and 11 recites the abstract idea of analyzing information in order to identify a keyword and determine if the keyword is usable to predict a trend, which is a process that can be performed mentally. In claim 1, this idea is described by the following claim steps:
acquisition step of acquiring information at intervals;
a keyword extraction step of extracting a keyword from the information acquired in the acquisition step;
an analysis target trend data generation step of generating, by analyzing from a predetermined perspective a trend of an analysis target keyword which is a keyword that serves as a target of trend analysis, analysis target trend data quantitatively indicating a trend of the analysis target keyword; and
a specific keyword determination step of determining, based on past case trend data obtained by analyzing from the perspective a past case keyword, which is a keyword related to a past case that led to the enactment or revision of laws and regulations or standards, and the analysis target trend data, whether or not the analysis target keyword corresponds to a specific keyword that is usable to predict a trend in the enactment or revision of the laws and regulations or standards.
This idea falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claim 6 and 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
an information processing device;
an information acquisition unit;
a website;
a keyword extraction unit;
an analysis target trend data generation unit;
a specific keyword determination unit;
a storage processing unit;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform steps;
However, using a computer environment such as a processor, and a memory and other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Analyzing keywords extracted from data received in order to determine if the keywords are usable to predict a trend can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring several units and non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform the steps.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 6 and 11 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2, 7 and 12 further limits the abstract idea by introducing a description of the perspective to be used in the analysis. Analyzing data is a process that could be performed manually until limited by units. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and generically analyzing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3, 8 and 13 further limits the abstract idea by introducing additional generic analysis of the data, however analyzing data is a process that could be performed manually until limited by units. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and generically analyzing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 4, 9 and 14 further limits the abstract idea by introducing additional generic analysis of the data, however analyzing data is a process that could be performed manually until limited by units. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and generically analyzing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 5, 10 and 15 further limits the abstract idea by linking the abstract idea to a specific technology environment by introducing a storage processing unit to store the data. However, further embellishing the invention is capable of storing data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMADA (US Patent Publication 2022/0292523).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 11, YAMADA discloses
an information processing device; an information processing method; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform steps [abstract; 052];
an information acquisition unit configured to acquire information from a website at intervals (See Figure 2 and [0047] “Information collection server 10 obtains relevant information relating to legislation etc. (vehicle emissions control) from an external server group 7” [0059] Observation data collector 111 collects information representing a result of observation of atmospheric pollution from external server group 7 over the Internet 6… Observation data collector 111 collects observation data, for example, for each day. [0060] Media report data collector 112 collects information on media reports or research reports about atmospheric pollution from external server group 7 over the Internet 6. [0061] FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing a procedure of processing for obtaining information on media reports or research reports (media report data) about atmospheric pollution. Processing in the flowchart shown in FIG. 3 is repeatedly performed by controller 11 (media report data collector 112) every prescribed cycle (for example, one month).);
a keyword extraction unit configured to extract a keyword from the information acquired by the information acquisition unit (See Figure 3 and [0065] In S4, controller 11 extracts a date of upload, a title, a source, and an outline from each piece of information included in the result of search. Specifically, controller 11 performs processing for text information syntax analysis on each piece of information included in the result of search to extract the title and the outline from information resulting from syntax analysis. );
an analysis target trend data generation unit which, by analyzing from a predetermined perspective a trend of an analysis target keyword which is a keyword that serves as a target of trend analysis, is configured to generate analysis target trend data quantitatively indicating a trend of the analysis target keyword ([0100] In S21, first processor 2121 reads the classification list from storage 22 or storage server 40 and checks the source of the media report data against the classification list. First processor 2121 may extract the source from the media report data as in the processing in S4 in FIG. 3. Alternatively, first processor 2121 may receive media report data to which information representing the extracted title, source, and outline has been added from information collection server 10. [0101] In S22, first processor 2121 classifies media report data for each classification category.); and
a specific keyword determination unit configured to determine, based on past case trend data obtained by analyzing from the perspective a past case keyword, which is a keyword related to a past case that led to the enactment or revision of laws and regulations or standards, and the analysis target trend data, whether or not the analysis target keyword corresponds to a specific keyword that is usable to predict a trend in the enactment or revision of the laws and regulations or standards (See Figure 8 and importance rank which is an evaluation of the terms after classification of the data in order to determine importance ranks related to “information that may lead to revision of emissions control” or “information that represents possibility of revision of emissions control including restriction on automobiles” [0106] Second processor 2122 accepts the input data from first processor 2121 and weights the input data. Specifically, second processor 2122 reads from the input data, a title, a source, an outline, and classification information as a feature value. Second processor 2122 includes a trained model trained through machine learning and provides an importance rank of the input data in accordance with a calculation rule constructed by training with the title, the source, the outline, and the classification information being defined as the feature value. Machine learning refers to an approach to iterative learning based on given information (for example, a training data set) to autonomously establish rules or criteria. [0107] FIG. 8 is a diagram for illustrating an exemplary importance rank. FIG. 8 shows fields for an importance rank, a point, and a standard. ).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 12, YAMADA discloses:
wherein: the perspective is at least one from among a second perspective, a third perspective, and a fourth perspective;
the second perspective is a change over time in a number of appearances, which is a number of the analysis target keywords that have appeared within the acquired information ([0162] Prediction systems 1 and 1A are described in connection with emissions control by way of example in the first and second embodiments. Prediction systems 1 and 1A may be used also for revision or institution of other legislation etc. or standards. For example, when prediction systems 1 and 1A are used for revision of safety standards for road trucking vehicles that stipulate safety standards of vehicles, information collection server 10 collects data on the number of traffic accidents and actual conditions (frequency) of use of vehicles. Then, information processing server 20 converts collected data into an index relating to the degree of influence on revision of safety standards for road trucking vehicles. Then, by using the index as input data, prediction systems 1 and 1A predict the stage of revision of safety standards for road trucking vehicles or properness of negotiation timing for revision of safety standards for road trucking vehicles. ).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, YAMADA discloses:
wherein: the analysis target trend data generation unit, by analyzing the trend of the analysis target keyword from a plurality of the predetermined perspectives, generates the analysis target trend data ([0100] In S21, first processor 2121 reads the classification list from storage 22 or storage server 40 and checks the source of the media report data against the classification list. First processor 2121 may extract the source from the media report data as in the processing in S4 in FIG. 3. Alternatively, first processor 2121 may receive media report data to which information representing the extracted title, source, and outline has been added from information collection server 10. [0101] In S22, first processor 2121 classifies media report data for each classification category.);
the specific keyword determination unit determines, based on the past case trend data obtained by analyzing the past case keyword from a plurality of the perspectives, and the analysis target trend data, whether or not the analysis target keyword corresponds to the specific keyword (See Figure 8 and importance rank which is an evaluation of the terms after classification of the data in order to determine importance ranks related to “information that may lead to revision of emissions control” or “information that represents possibility of revision of emissions control including restriction on automobiles” [0106] Second processor 2122 accepts the input data from first processor 2121 and weights the input data. Specifically, second processor 2122 reads from the input data, a title, a source, an outline, and classification information as a feature value. Second processor 2122 includes a trained model trained through machine learning and provides an importance rank of the input data in accordance with a calculation rule constructed by training with the title, the source, the outline, and the classification information being defined as the feature value. Machine learning refers to an approach to iterative learning based on given information (for example, a training data set) to autonomously establish rules or criteria. [0107] FIG. 8 is a diagram for illustrating an exemplary importance rank. FIG. 8 shows fields for an importance rank, a point, and a standard. );
the plurality of perspectives include the first perspective, and at least one from among the second perspective, the third perspective, and the fourth perspective; and the first perspective is an elapsed period, which is a period from the analysis target keyword having begun to appear within the acquired information, or alternatively, is a continuous appearance period, which is a period during which the analysis target keyword appears continuously within the acquired information ([0162] Prediction systems 1 and 1A are described in connection with emissions control by way of example in the first and second embodiments. Prediction systems 1 and 1A may be used also for revision or institution of other legislation etc. or standards. For example, when prediction systems 1 and 1A are used for revision of safety standards for road trucking vehicles that stipulate safety standards of vehicles, information collection server 10 collects data on the number of traffic accidents and actual conditions (frequency) of use of vehicles. Then, information processing server 20 converts collected data into an index relating to the degree of influence on revision of safety standards for road trucking vehicles. Then, by using the index as input data, prediction systems 1 and 1A predict the stage of revision of safety standards for road trucking vehicles or properness of negotiation timing for revision of safety standards for road trucking vehicles.).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, YAMADA discloses:
wherein, in the case that the degree of similarity between the past case trend data and the analysis target trend data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree threshold value, the specific keyword determination unit determines that the analysis target keyword corresponds to the specific keyword (See Fig.8 and [0107] FIG. 8 is a diagram for illustrating an exemplary importance rank. FIG. 8 shows fields for an importance rank, a point, and a standard. In the example shown in FIG. 8, importance ranks 1 to 7 are provided. The importance rank represents a degree of influence by input data on revision of emissions control, and as a value thereof is larger, importance is higher. In the standard, an outline of information to which the importance rank is provided is described. Importance rank 1 is given to information irrelevant to atmospheric pollution. [0113] FIG. 9 is a diagram for illustrating conversion of an importance rank into a point. The abscissa in FIG. 9 represents an importance rank and the ordinate represents a point. The point represented on the ordinate is the same as the point shown in FIG. 8. The second function shown in FIG. 9 may be derived, for example, from a model in which a point exponentially increases with increase in importance rank. For example, importance rank 1 is set to 0 point. Importance rank 2 is set to 0.1 point. Importance rank 3 is set to 0.5 point. Importance rank 4 is set to 1.5 point. Importance rank 5 is set to 3.5 point. Importance rank 6 is set to 6.0 point. Importance rank 7 is set to 9.0 point. The weight coefficient used for conversion of the importance rank into the point may be determined, for example, based on past data (data representing relation between the importance rank and records of revision of emissions control). ).
Regarding claim 5, 10 and 15, YAMADA discloses:
further comprising a storage processing unit which, in the case that laws and regulations or standards concerning a case related to one of the analysis target keywords that has been determined by the specific keyword determination unit to correspond to the specific keyword have been established or revised, is configured to add to the storage unit as the past case trend data the analysis target trend data concerning the one of the analysis target keywords ([046] storage server 40, [049] Each of information collection server 10, information processing server 20, and prediction creation server 30 can have desired information stored in storage server 40 or can read desired information from storage server 40. ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. P. Homayounfar and M. L. Owoc, "Data mining research trends in computerized patient records," 2011 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), Szczecin, Poland, 2011, pp. 133-139.
2. US 20210157615, Lu, INTELLIGENT ISSUE ANALYTICS. In an approach to predicting issue development trends based on generated ordered association rules, one or more computer processors subdivide an issue into a set of one or more subproblems.
3. US 20210065224, Kawashima, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMPLETING TREND MAPPING USING SIMILARITY SCORING. A system and method for completing trend mapping using similarity scoring that include receiving data associated with a vehicle and an occupant of the vehicle. The system and method also include analyzing the data associated with the vehicle and the occupant to determine at least one of: vehicle dynamic data, vehicle utilization data, and occupant demographic data. The system and method additionally include determining a center of gravity value of at least one of: the vehicle dynamic data, the vehicle utilization data, and the occupant demographic data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights