DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Preliminary Amendment filed on July 18, 2024 for Application# 18/730,050 filed on July 18, 2024 in which claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
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 claims
Claims 1-8 are pending, of which claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and also claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. because the claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.)
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes - Claim 1-8 recite a method and apparatus respectively.
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
integrate, using observed event information representing an observed event that has been observed and rule information representing inference knowledge (recites mental process of observed event with pen and a paper representing inference knowledge); and
detect differences between first integrated solution hypothesis information, which has been generated by the integrating means integrating one or more pieces of first solution hypothesis information generated using the observed event information and the rule information, and second integrated solution hypothesis information, which has been generated by the integrating means integrating one or more pieces of second solution hypothesis information generated when one or both of the observed event information and the rule information have changed (recites mental process of detecting differences with pen and a paper between first solution hypothesis and second solution hypotheses information of the observed event information and rule information).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
a plurality of pieces of solution hypothesis information generated by weighted abduction processing (recites implementing the abstract idea on using an algorithmic weighted abduction processing and cites the claim limitations in a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating weighted abduction.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of processing and storing solution hypotheses information, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, of weighted abduction of solution hypothesis information.
The analysis of claims 6 and 7 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
generating first integrated solution hypothesis information by integrating one or more pieces of first solution hypothesis information which have been using condition information including observed event information representing an observed event that has been observed and rule information representing inference knowledge (recites mental process of observed event with pen and a paper representing inference knowledge);
generating second integrated solution hypothesis information by integrating one or more pieces of second solution hypothesis information, which have been generated using changed condition information in a case where one or both of the observed event information and the rule information in included in the condition information have changed (recites mental process of detecting differences with pen and a paper between first solution hypothesis and second solution hypotheses information of the observed event information and rule information); and
detecting differences between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information (recites mental process of detecting differences with pen and a paper between first solution hypothesis and second solution hypotheses information of the observed event information and rule information).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
generated weighted abduction processing (recites implementing the abstract idea on using an algorithmic weighted abduction processing and cites the claim limitations in a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating weighted abduction.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
an information processing method in which an information processing apparatus executes processing comprising (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of processing and storing solution hypotheses information, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that includes a program recorded thereon, the program including instructions that causes to carry out (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of processing and storing solution hypotheses information, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, of weighted abduction of solution hypothesis information.
The analysis of claims 2-5 and 8 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
Claim 2 recites sets observed literal information representing an observed literal, hypothetical literal information representing a hypothetical literal, backward inference operation information representing a backward inference operation, and unification operation information representing a unification operation, all of which are included in the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information, as elements to derive an intersection set and a difference set of the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information, and detects the differences between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information based on results of the deriving (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of manipulating solution hypothesis).
Claim 3 recites derives elements that disappear based on a difference set obtained by subtracting elements of the second integrated solution hypothesis information from elements of the first integrated solution hypothesis information and derives elements that appear based on a difference set obtained by subtracting elements of the first integrated solution hypothesis information from elements of the second integrated solution hypothesis information (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of manipulating solution hypothesis).
Claim 4 recites generates, using the elements of the intersection set, the elements that disappear, and the elements that appear, output information representing the differences between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information for outputting to an output device (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of manipulating solution hypothesis).
Claim 8 recites wherein the information processing apparatus is used for cyber security (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of manipulating solution hypothesis).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
Claim 5 recites generates the output information to be outputted by distinguishing between the elements of the intersection set, the elements that disappear, and the elements that appear (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of manipulating solution hypotheses, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating of manipulating solution hypotheses.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
Claims 2-5 and 8 recites an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of processing and storing solution hypotheses information, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, manipulating solution hypothesis with inference information.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. US 2021/0125090 A1 (hereinafter ‘Sasaki’) in view of Kazeto Yamamoto US 2020/0118013 A1 (hereinafter ‘Yamamoto’).
As per claim 1, Sasaki disclose, An information processing apparatus (Sasaki: paragraph 0115: disclose computer using any type of non-transitory computer readable media) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Sasaki: paragraph 0114: disclose implemented by causing a CPU (Central Processing Unit) to execute a control program for each process); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Sasaki: paragraph 0114: disclose executed by one or more processors):
integrate, using observed event information representing an observed event that has been observed and rule information representing inference knowledge (Sasaki: paragraph 0045: observed information includes a hypothesis from which the logical expression ‘inference’ is derived based on the knowledge database ‘knowledge’ including the knowledge information in which the logical expression for deriving the consequent from the antecedent ‘observed event’ is expressed), a plurality of pieces of solution hypothesis information generated (Sasaki: paragraph 0030: disclose hypothesis generation unit creates a set of candidate hypotheses ‘plurality of pieces of solution hypothesis’ in which observed information includes a hypothesis) by weighted abduction processing (Sasaki: paragraph 0032: disclose abductive inference is converted into a Weighted Partial MaxSAT problem, which examiner equates to weighted abduction).
It is noted, however, that Sasaki did not specifically detail the aspects of
detect differences between first integrated solution hypothesis information, which has been generated by the integrating means integrating one or more pieces of first solution hypothesis information generated using the observed event information and the rule information, and second integrated solution hypothesis information, which has been generated by the integrating means integrating one or more pieces of second solution hypothesis information generated when one or both of the observed event information and the rule information have changed as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Yamamoto achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
detect differences (Yamamoto: paragraph 0060: disclose the first inference unit compares ‘differences’ for each candidate hypothesis currently included in the set of candidate hypotheses) between first integrated solution hypothesis information, which has been generated by the integrating means integrating one or more pieces of first solution hypothesis information generated using the observed event information and the rule information (Yamamoto: paragraph 0065 and Fig. 4 Element A23: disclose a new candidate hypothesis for an observation is generated by executing step A23 where inference knowledge is applied in reverse), and second integrated solution hypothesis information, which has been generated by the integrating means integrating one or more pieces of second solution hypothesis information generated when one or both of the observed event information and the rule information have changed (Yamamoto: paragraph 0066 and Fig. 4 Element A24: disclose second inference unit searches the knowledge database for inference knowledge that can be applied forward to the set of candidate hypotheses received from the first inference unit).
Sasaki and Yamamoto are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and both from the same “problem-solving area”. Namely, they are both from the field of “Inference Processing Systems”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Sasaki and Yamamoto because they are both directed to inference processing systems and both are from the same field of endeavor. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal option to include the restriction features of Yamamoto with the method described by Sasaki in order to solve the problem posed.
The motivation for doing so would have been for inference method for deriving a hypothesis that explains observed facts based on known knowledge, and has been performed for a long time (Yamamoto: paragraph 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yamamoto with Sasaki to obtain the invention as specified in instant claim 1.
As per claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted, however, that Sasaki did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the one or more processors further:
sets observed literal information representing an observed literal, hypothetical literal information representing a hypothetical literal, backward inference operation information representing a backward inference operation, and unification operation information representing a unification operation, all of which are included in the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information, as elements to derive an intersection set and a difference set of the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information, and detects the differences between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information based on results of the deriving as recited in claim 2.
On the other hand, Yamamoto achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the one or more processors further:
sets observed literal information representing an observed literal, hypothetical literal information representing a hypothetical literal, backward inference operation information representing a backward inference operation (Yamamoto: paragraph 0065 and Fig. 4 Element A23: disclose a new candidate hypothesis for an observation is generated by executing step A23 where inference knowledge is applied in reverse ‘backward’), and unification operation information representing a unification operation, all of which are included in the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information, as elements to derive an intersection set and a difference set of the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information (Yamamoto: paragraph 0066 and Fig. 4 Element A24: disclose second inference unit searches the knowledge database for inference knowledge that can be applied forward to the set of candidate hypotheses received from the first inference unit), and detects the differences between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information based on results of the deriving (Yamamoto: paragraph 0060: disclose the first inference unit compares ‘differences’ for each candidate hypothesis currently included in the set of candidate hypotheses).
As per claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above.
It is noted, however, that Sasaki did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the one or more processors further:
derives elements that disappear based on a difference set obtained by subtracting elements of the second integrated solution hypothesis information from elements of the first integrated solution hypothesis information and derives elements that appear based on a difference set obtained by subtracting elements of the first integrated solution hypothesis information from elements of the second integrated solution hypothesis information as recited in claim 3.
On the other hand, Yamamoto achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the one or more processors further:
derives elements that disappear based on a difference set obtained by subtracting elements of the second integrated solution hypothesis information from elements of the first integrated solution hypothesis information and derives elements that appear based on a difference set obtained by subtracting elements of the first integrated solution hypothesis information from elements of the second integrated solution hypothesis information (Yamamoto: paragraph 0060: disclose based on the comparison results, inference knowledge that allows variable substitution ‘subtracting’ by which the conjunction constituted by atomic formulas included in candidate hypotheses and the consequent are made equivalent to each other. Examiner equates substitution to subtracting and the remaining limitation is considered as program logic).
As per claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 3 above.
It is noted, however, that Sasaki did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the one or more processors further:
generates, using the elements of the intersection set, the elements that disappear, and the elements that appear, output information representing the differences between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information for outputting to an output device as recited in claim 4.
On the other hand, Yamamoto achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the one or more processors further:
generates, using the elements of the intersection set, the elements that disappear, and the elements that appear, output information representing the differences between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information for outputting to an output device (Yamamoto: paragraph 0060: disclose based on the comparison results, inference knowledge that allows variable substitution ‘subtracting’ by which the conjunction constituted by atomic formulas included in candidate hypotheses and the consequent are made equivalent to each other. Examiner equates substitution to subtracting and the remaining limitation is considered as program logic).
As per claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.
It is noted, however, that Sasaki did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the one or more processors further:
generates the output information to be outputted by distinguishing between the elements of the intersection set, the elements that disappear, and the elements that appear as recited in claim 5.
On the other hand, Yamamoto achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the one or more processors further:
generates the output information to be outputted by distinguishing between the elements of the intersection set, the elements that disappear, and the elements that appear (Yamamoto: paragraph 0063: disclose the first inference unit outputs the set of the current candidate hypotheses to the second inference unit because there is no piece of inference knowledge that can be newly applied in reverse to any one of the candidate hypotheses that are currently included in the set of candidate hypotheses. Examiner argues the remaining limitation is considered as program logic).
As per claim 6, Sasaki disclose, An information processing method in which an information processing apparatus (Sasaki: paragraph 0115: disclose computer using any type of non-transitory computer readable media) executes processing comprising:
generating first integrated solution hypothesis information by integrating one or more pieces of first solution hypothesis information which have been generated weighted abduction processing (Sasaki: paragraph 0032: disclose abductive inference is converted into a Weighted Partial MaxSAT problem, which examiner equates to weighted abduction) using condition information including observed event information representing an observed event that has been observed and rule information representing inference knowledge (Sasaki: paragraph 0045: observed information includes a hypothesis from which the logical expression ‘inference’ is derived based on the knowledge database ‘knowledge’ including the knowledge information in which the logical expression for deriving the consequent from the antecedent ‘observed event’ is expressed);
generating second integrated solution hypothesis information by integrating one or more pieces of second solution hypothesis information, which have been generated using changed condition information in a case where one or both of the observed event information and the rule information in included in the condition information have changed (Sasaki: paragraph 0030: disclose hypothesis generation unit creates a set of candidate hypotheses ‘plurality of pieces of solution hypothesis’ in which observed information includes a hypothesis).
It is noted, however, that Sasaki did not specifically detail the aspects of
detecting differences between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information as recited in claim 6.
On the other hand, Yamamoto achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
detecting differences (Yamamoto: paragraph 0060: disclose the first inference unit compares ‘differences’ for each candidate hypothesis currently included in the set of candidate hypotheses) between the first integrated solution hypothesis information and the second integrated solution hypothesis information (Yamamoto: paragraph 0066 and Fig. 4 Element A24: disclose second inference unit searches the knowledge database for inference knowledge that can be applied forward to the set of candidate hypotheses received from the first inference unit).
As per claim 7, Sasaki disclose, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Sasaki: paragraph 0115: disclose non-transitory computer readable media) that includes a program recorded thereon, the program including instructions that causes to carry out: remaining limitations in this claim 7 are similar to the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 6.
As per claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Sasaki disclose, wherein the information processing apparatus is used for cyber security (Sasaki: paragraph 0111: disclose computer security, the created hypothesis can be used to determine the rule for detecting malware or a process for detecting malware ‘cyber security’).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. US 2015/0006458 A1 disclose “System for generating configuration-hypothesis for subject complex system, selects final hypothesis describing observed configuration data based on score assigned by scoring function to hypotheses in current set of hypotheses”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights