Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a device with structural components (claims 1 - 10), a method (claim 11), and a program with structural components (claim 12). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
a generation unit configured to generate a first logic model based on a first node and a first edge input by the input unit;
For example, a person identifies a first item as a node and a relationship associated with that item as an edge, and mentally generates a logical representation showing the relationship between the items.
an identification unit configured to identify a similarity index similar to a first index of the first node from the logic model when the first node in a first logic model generated by the generation unit is specified;
For example, a person is given a particular item in a logical model, reviews the indexes associated with other items, and identifies an index that is similar to the index of the particular item.
an output unit configured to output a similarity index identified by the identification unit.
For example, a person can write down the identified most similar index.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a storage unit configured to store a logic model being a network structure including at least one node having an index and an edge indicating a connection of indexes indicated by two of the at least one node;
an input unit configured to input a first node and a first edge;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The logic model preparation support device, storage device, network structure, input unit, generation unit, identification unit, and a output unit are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a storage unit configured to store a logic model being a network structure including at least one node having an index and an edge indicating a connection of indexes indicated by two of the at least one node;
an input unit configured to input a first node and a first edge;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The logic model preparation support device, storage device, network structure, input unit, generation unit, identification unit, and a output unit are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
a generation unit configured to generate a first logic model based on a first node and a first edge input by the input unit;
For example, a person identifies a first item as a node and a relationship associated with that item as an edge, and mentally generates a logical representation showing the relationship between the items.
an identification unit configured to identify a similarity index similar to a first index of the first node from the logic model when the first node in a first logic model generated by the generation unit is specified;
For example, a person is given a particular item in a logical model, reviews the indexes associated with other items, and identifies an index that is similar to the index of the particular item.
an output unit configured to output a similarity index identified by the identification unit.
For example, a person can write down the identified most similar index.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a storage unit configured to store a logic model being a network structure including at least one node having an index and an edge indicating a connection of indexes indicated by two of the at least one node;
an input unit configured to input a first node and a first edge;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The logic model preparation support device, storage device, network structure, input unit, generation unit, identification unit, and a output unit are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a storage unit configured to store a logic model being a network structure including at least one node having an index and an edge indicating a connection of indexes indicated by two of the at least one node;
an input unit configured to input a first node and a first edge;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The logic model preparation support device, storage device, network structure, input unit, generation unit, identification unit, and a output unit are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the output unit outputs the similarity index and information related to the similarity index
For example, a person can write down the identified most similar index and information related to the similarity index
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the storage unit stores related information related to the index
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the storage unit stores related information related to the index
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein when the first edge in the first logic model is specified, the identification unit identifies the similarity index similar to the first index of the first edge connected to the first edge from the logic model.
For example, a person can write down the identified most similar index and information related to the similarity index
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein when output data output by inputting the first logic model to the learning model indicates use of the first logic model, the identification unit identifies the similarity index from the logic model that has become the training data of the learning model.
For example, a person can write down the identified most similar index and information related to the similarity index from previous iterations.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the storage unit stores a learning model trained by using the logic model as training data and using presence or absence of using the logic model as correct answer data
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the storage unit stores a learning model trained by using the logic model as training data and using presence or absence of using the logic model as correct answer data
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the generation unit generates a second logic model base on a second node and a second edge input by the input unit,
wherein when a second index similar to the first index of the first node in the first logic model is not present in any of the second nodes of the second logic model, the identification unit determines the first node as a specific first node in which the first index is not similar to the second index, and
wherein the output unit outputs the specific first node in the first logic model in a displayable manner to an output destination of the first logic model so as to be different from another first node that is not the specific first node.
For example, a person mentally compares two sets of connected items, identifies an item in the first set that has no similar item in the second set, and distinguishes that item for the others.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the input unit inputs a second node and a second edge
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the input unit inputs a second node and a second edge
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the generation unit generates a second logic model based on a second node and a second edge input by the input unit,
wherein the identification unit identifies a similarity second node having a second index similar to the first index of the first node in the first logic model from the second logic model, and when the first index of a first node of a connection destination connected to the first node by the first edge is not similar to the second index of a second node of a connection destination connected to the similarity second node by the second edge, the identification unit determines the first edge connecting the first node and a first node of the connection destination as a specific first edge, and
wherein in the first logic model, the output unit outputs the specific first edge in a displayable manner to an output destination of the first logic model so as to be different from another first edge that is not the specific first edge.
For example, a person mentally compares two sets of connected items, identifies a connection where the corresponding items do not match, and distinguishes that connection form the others.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the input unit inputs a second node and a second edge
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the input unit inputs a second node and a second edge
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 7, ,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the identification unit determines a first node of the connection destination as a specific first node in which the first index is not similar to the second index,
wherein in the first logic model, the output unit outputs the specific first node in a displayable manner to an output destination of the first logic model so as to be different from another first node that is not the specific first node.
For example, a person mentally compares corresponding items in two connected sets, identifies a connected item that does not match, and distinguishes that item from the others.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the generation unit generates a second logic model based on a second node and a second edge input by the input unit,
wherein the identification unit identifies a dissimilarity second node having a second index that is not similar to the first index of the first node in the first logic model from the second logic model, and when the first index of a first node of a connection destination connected to the first node by the first edge is not similar to the second index of a second node of a connection destination connected to the similarity second node with the second edge, the identification unit determines the first edge connecting the first node and a first node of the connection destination as a specific first edge, and
wherein in the first logic model, the output unit outputs the specific first edge in a displayable manner to an output destination of the first logic model so as to be different from another first edge that is not the specific first edge.
For example, a person mentally compares two sets of connected items, identifies a connection where the corresponding items do not match, and distinguishes that connection form the others.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the input unit inputs a second node and a second edge
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the input unit inputs a second node and a second edge
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 9, ,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the identification unit determines the first node and a first node of the connection destination as a specific first node in which the first index is not similar to the second index, and
wherein in the first logic model, the output unit outputs the specific first node in a displayable manner to an output destination of the first logic model so as to be different from another first node that is not the specific first node.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the generation unit generates the first logic model in which the first node is arranged by the layer based on the first node, the first edge, and the layer, and
wherein the output unit outputs the first logic model in which the first node is arranged by the layer.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the input unit inputs a layer of the first node
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the input unit inputs a layer of the first node
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The processor, storage device, and database are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The processor, storage device, and database are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM (US 2022/0293220).
As to claim 1, KIM teaches a logic model preparation support device comprising:
a storage unit configured to store a logic model being a network structure including at least one node having an index and an edge indicating a connection of indexes indicated by two of the at least one node (paragraph [0128]…since verb terms are registered in the function term dictionary stored in the causal model database 122 ; paragraph [0129]… [0129] The function term dictionary may be composed of a tree data structure to calculate semantic distance between each term. The first similarity index calculation value may be generated as a distance that verb token reaches Adjust via a parent node that is common and nearest from both verb token and Adjust (i.e., the number of edges connecting each hierarchical node). Thus, as farther the nearest parent node is away from the highest node, as higher the first similarity value will be. This type of tree data structure may be structured in similar manner to a hierarchical structure having a connection relationship between nodes so as to calculate the degree of kinship)(Examiner’s Note: “function term dictionary stored in the causal model database 122,” reads on “a storage unit configured to store a logic model” ; “function term dictionary may be composed of a tree data structure to calculate semantic distance between each term” reads on “a logic model being a network structure” ; “a distance that verb token reaches Adjust via a parent node that is common and nearest from both verb token and Adjust (i.e., the number of edges connecting each hierarchical node)” reads on “including at least one node having an index and an edge indicating a connection of indexes indicated by two of the at least one node”).
an input unit configured to input a first node and a first edge (paragraph [0102]…The query parsing unit 154 may decompose the query phrase inputted by a designer with use of the query inputting unit 152 into tokens, which are words at meaningful level that are processed by a conventional natural language processing method, and analyze grammatical components of each token (e.g., adjective, verb, noun, etc.) ; paragraph [0129]… [0129] The function term dictionary may be composed of a tree data structure to calculate semantic distance between each term. The first similarity index calculation value may be generated as a distance that verb token reaches Adjust via a parent node that is common and nearest from both verb token and Adjust (i.e., the number of edges connecting each hierarchical node). Thus, as farther the nearest parent node is away from the highest node, as higher the first similarity value will be. This type of tree data structure may be structured in similar manner to a hierarchical structure having a connection relationship between nodes so as to calculate the degree of kinship) (Examiner’s Note: “query parsing unit 154 may decompose the query phrase inputted by a designer with use of the query inputting unit 152 into tokens” reads on “an input unit configured to input a first node and a first edge”).
a generation unit configured to generate a first logic model based on a first node and a first edge input by the input unit (paragraph [0158]… [0138] Hereinafter, a process will be described that when the similarity assessing unit 124 provides the causal model canvas unit 158 with at lease one biological system information with reference to the similarity index assessment value generated in the aforementioned process, the causal model canvas unit 158 may measure derivativity between each biological system information, and plot the network graph (See FIG. 5). Of course, it will be appreciated that the similarity assessing unit 124 may measure the derivativity and the causal model canvas unit 158 may generate the network graph by use of the result of derivativity measurement)(Examiner’s Note: “the causal model canvas unit 158 may generate the network graph by use of the result of derivativity measurement” reads on “a generation unit configured to generate a first logic model based on a first node and a first edge input by the input unit”);
an identification unit configured to identify a similarity index similar to a first index of the first node from the logic model when the first node in a first logic model generated by the generation unit is specified (paragraph [0131]…the similarity assessing unit 124 may check whether the state adjective (e.g., small, high, etc.) exists in corpus data set corresponding to the retrieval query, and if exists, further perform similarity index assessment in consideration with the state adjective)(Examiner’s Note: “similarity assessing unit 124” reads on “an identification unit”); and
an output unit configured to output a similarity index identified by the identification unit (paragraph [0142]… In the graph region 510, a network graph for biological system information assessed as having high similarity index assessment value is displayed, and numbers in series 530 for allowing a designer to select biological system information in the order of high similarity index assessment values may be disposed in upper region. If the designer changes number 1 to number 2, a network graph for biological system information in group 2 of which similarity index assessment value is relatively low may be displayed in the graph region 510)(Examiner’s Note: “a network graph for biological system information assessed as having high similarity index assessment value is displayed” reads on “an output unit configured to output a similarity index identified by the identification unit”).
As to claim 2, KIM teaches the logic model preparation support device according to wherein the storage unit stores related information related to the index, and wherein the output unit outputs the similarity index and information related to the similarity index (paragraph [0142]… In the graph region 510, a network graph for biological system information assessed as having high similarity index assessment value is displayed, and numbers in series 530 for allowing a designer to select biological system information in the order of high similarity index assessment values may be disposed in upper region. If the designer changes number 1 to number 2, a network graph for biological system information in group 2 of which similarity index assessment value is relatively low may be displayed in the graph region 510).
As to claim 3, KIM teaches the logic model preparation support device according to wherein the storage unit stores related information related to the index, and wherein the output unit outputs the similarity index and information related to the similarity index
(paragraph [0142]… In the graph region 510, a network graph for biological system information assessed as having high similarity index assessment value is displayed, and numbers in series 530 for allowing a designer to select biological system information in the order of high similarity index assessment values may be disposed in upper region. If the designer changes number 1 to number 2, a network graph for biological system information in group 2 of which similarity index assessment value is relatively low may be displayed in the graph region 510).
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights