DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/836,834 filed on August 8, 2024, presents claims 1-6 for examination, claims priority to PCT/JP2022/013172 filed on 3/22/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/8/2024, was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
the sentence “wherein the second evaluation value indicates the evaluation of the similarity with the design history, of the entirety of one or more applications of the embodiment rule until the abstract configuration is obtained from the new configuration;” is not clear what the similarity is about, i.e. between what and what. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
para [0006-0008] of The Summary of The Invention includes same/similar sentence as that in the Abstract, it is not clear what the similarity is about, i.e. between what and what.
Para [0093], (Step S802), the fourth sentence should read
--(Step S802: YES), the process proceeds to Step S803--.
the last sentence of the paragraph, should read
--(Step S802: NO), the process ends--.
Para [0198], line 2, --a data structure
Para [0207], embodiment portion 612 is not on Fig. 13. Which shows 602 as the portion.
Applicant is advised to proof read the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, third line, “at least one memory configured to store instructions”, suggestion: -- at least one memory storing instructions--.
Claims 5, same issue as claim 1, and is objected to for the same reason.
Claims 2-4 are objected to for the same reason because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 1, line 6, “a candidate of the embodiment rule application” wherein “the embodiment rule application” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 16, “the abstract configurations” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 17-20, “wherein the second evaluation value indicates the evaluation of the similarity with the design history, of the entirety of one or more applications of the embodiment rule until the abstract configuration is obtained from the new configuration;”
It is not clear what the similarity is about, i.e. between what and what. Suggestion: - wherein the second evaluation value indicates the evaluation of the similarity between with the design history, and [[of]] the entirety of one or more applications of the embodiment rule until the abstract configuration is obtained from the new configuration;-
Claims 2-4 are objected to for the same reason because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 6, line 5, same issue as claim 1, line 6, wherein “the embodiment rule application” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 15, same issue as claim 1, wherein “the abstract configurations” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6, lines 16-19, same issue as lines 17-20 of claim 1, see suggestion above for claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 6, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 6,
“calculating a first evaluation value indicating an evaluation of a similarity between a specific embodiment rule application and a candidate of the embodiment rule application, wherein the specific embodiment rule application is included in a design history, the design history indicates a history of in a case where an embodiment configuration is obtained by repeatedly applying an embodiment rule to an abstract configuration, the embodiment configuration being a system configuration not including an abstract element and the abstract configuration being a system configuration including an abstract element, and the candidate of the embodiment rule application is used for a new configuration in a case where determining the embodiment configuration, the new configuration being the abstract configuration of a system design target;
selecting, based on a second evaluation value, a specific abstract configuration among the abstract configurations obtained by applying the embodiment rule to the new configuration one or more times, wherein the second evaluation value indicates the evaluation of the similarity with the design history, of the entirety of one or more applications of the embodiment rule until the abstract configuration is obtained from the new configuration; and
repeating the embodiment rule application to the selected specific abstract configuration.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually calculate a first evaluation value as defined in the claim, can manually select a specific abstract configuration as defined in the claim, and can manually repeat the embodiment rule application as defined in the claim. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional element
“a computer”
Wherein the computer is cited as a generic computer, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a computer” that is mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, is not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system configuration derivation device claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a system configuration derivation device to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 6 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 6, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 6.
Claim 1 recites more additional elements not recited in claim 6, i.e. “A system configuration derivation device”, “at least one memory”, and “at least one processor”. But the device, the memory, and the processor are cited as generic computer or computer elements in the computer system, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 2, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate for embodiment rule application included in the repetition of embodiment rule application for the new configuration, and how much the system sub-configurations to which the embodiment rules are applied are the same.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the user can manually perform the calculating process as defined in the claim. And the processor is merely used as a tool to implement the identified mental process.
With respect to claim 3, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
manage each of the abstract configurations obtained by applying the embodiment rule to the new configuration and the abstract configuration one or more times in association with the second evaluation value,
preferentially select
repeat ” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the user can manually perform the managing, selecting, and repeating processes as defined in the claim. And the processor is merely used as a tool to implement the identified mental processes.
With respect to claim 4, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to select ” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the user can manually perform the selecting process as defined in the claim. And the processor is merely used as a tool to implement the identified mental process.
With respect to claim 5, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system configuration derivation device claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 5,
“at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
associate an evaluation value of a similarity between a first application of an embodiment rule and a second application of an embodiment rule with an embodiment configuration obtained from a new configuration, wherein (d1) the first application of the embodiment rule is obtained in a process of obtaining an embodiment configuration by repeatedly applying an embodiment rule to input of the new configuration including the abstract element, the embodiment configuration being a system configuration not including an abstract element, and wherein (d2) the second application of the embodiment rule is included in a design history indicating a history of the embodiment configuration obtained by repeatedly applying the embodiment rule to an abstract configuration which is a system configuration including the abstract element; and
output the evaluation value of the similarity.”
as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the associating process as defined in the claim. Thus, the limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“A system configuration derivation device”, “at least one memory”, and “at least one processor”. And
“output the evaluation value of the similarity.”
But the device, the memory, and the processor are cited as generic computer or computer elements in the computer system, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The “output …” process is insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data transmitting, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “A system configuration derivation device”, “at least one memory”, and “at least one processor” that are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept. The “output …” is insignificant extra-solution activity, such as transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUWAHARA (WO 2020179173 A1, hereinafter, “KUWAHARA”, cited from IDS filed on 8/8/2024. Please refer to the attached NPL copy) in view of MARUYAMA et al. (WO 2019244446 A1, hereinafter, “MARUYAMA”, cited from IDS filed on 8/8/2024. Please refer to the attached NPL copy).
With respect to claim 1, KUWAHARA discloses A system configuration derivation device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (e.g. Fig. 19, p21 second paragraph, “The main storage unit 12 is used as a work area for data and a temporary save area for data. The main storage unit 12 is, for example, a RAM (Random Access Memory).”); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (e.g. Fig. 19, p21 first paragraph, “The information processing device shown in FIG. 19 may include a DSP (Digital Signal Processor)instead of the CPU 11. Alternatively, the information processing device illustrated in FIG. 19 may include the CPU 11 and the DSP together.”):
calculate a first evaluation value indicating an evaluation of a similarity between a specific embodiment rule application and a candidate of the embodiment rule application, wherein the specific embodiment rule application is included in a design history, the design history indicates a history of in a case where an embodiment configuration is obtained by repeatedly applying an embodiment rule to an abstract configuration, the embodiment configuration being a system configuration not including an abstract element and the abstract configuration being a system configuration including an abstract element, and the candidate of the embodiment rule application is used for a new configuration in a case where determining the embodiment configuration, the new configuration being the abstract configuration of a system design target (e.g. p13 second from last paragraph to p14 last paragraph, “… Next, the external design information reflection unit 103 calculates the similarity score as a graph of the abstract configuration d' and the abstract configuration d * (step S1523). The external design information reflecting unit 103 outputs the calculated similarity score as a similarity score regarding the hint information (d, d*) (step S1524). After outputting the similarity score, the external design information reflecting unit 103 returns to the materialization policy selection processing. …” wherein d reads on a candidate of the embodiment rule application, and d* reads on a specific embodiment rule application. d* is obtained from external design information which indicates a design history);
repeat the embodiment rule application to the selected specific abstract configuration (e.g. p15 second paragraph, “… The configuration information materialization unit 101 repeatedly embodies the abstract configuration based on the materialization policy received from the materialization policy determination unit 102, and outputs the configuration information of the completely materialized ICT system.”).
KUWAHARA does not appear to explicitly disclose
select, based on a second evaluation value, a specific abstract configuration among the abstract configurations obtained by applying the embodiment rule to the new configuration one or more times, wherein the second evaluation value indicates the evaluation of the similarity with the design history, of the entirety of one or more applications of the embodiment rule until the abstract configuration is obtained from the new configuration;
However, this is taught in analogous art, MARUYAMA (e.g. p13, 6th paragraph, “… the search unit 18 calculates the score of the quadruplet by applying the quadruple to the score calculation method for each of the determined pairs. The score calculation method is learned by the learning unit 14 as described above, and is stored in the learning result storage unit 15.” P13, second from last paragraph, “… Therefore, the search unit 18 newly selects the component 62 obtained by applying “pair 1” to the component 61 as the component of interest.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of KUWAHARA with the invention of MARUYAMA because it provides techniques for efficiently deriving a configuration of a system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for efficiently deriving a configuration of a system as suggested by MARUYAMA (see Abstract).
With respect to claim 2, KUWAHARA discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate (e.g. p14 last to p15 first paragraph, “… However, the external design information reflecting unit 103 sets the
similarity score to a larger value when the abstract configuration is the same as all the configuration groups given as hint information or some configurations included in the configuration group. …” wherein the configuration groups given as hint information or some configurations included in the configuration group reads on the embodiment rule applications included in the design history), and how much the system sub-configurations to which the embodiment rules are applied are the same (e.g. p14 third paragraph, “… After outputting the similarity score, the external design information reflecting unit 103 returns to the materialization policy selection processing.” P14 second from the last paragraph, “The external design information reflection unit 103 calculates, for example, the total of the similarity scores obtained from the respective hint information as the similarity score of the abstract configuration. The method by which the external design information reflection unit 103 calculates the similarity score of the abstract configuration from the similarity score obtained from each hint information is not limited to the above method.”).
With respect to claim 3, MARUYAMA discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
manage each of the abstract configurations obtained by applying the embodiment rule to the new configuration and the abstract configuration one or more times in association with the second evaluation value (e.g. p13, 6th paragraph, “… the search unit 18 calculates the score of the quadruplet by applying the quadruple to the score calculation method for each of the determined pairs. ….” Wherein the score reads on the second evaluation value. P14, second paragraph, “The search unit 18 repeats the same operation when newly selecting a constituent component of interest. ...” wherein repeats the same operation indicates manage the operation one or more times. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above.),
preferentially select selects an abstract configuration the higher the similarity indicated by the second evaluation value (e.g. p13, second from last paragraph, “For example, the score of the quadruple corresponding to the above “pair 1” is “0.9”, the score of the quadruple corresponding to the above “pair 2” is “0.8”, Assume that the score of the quadruple corresponding to “3” is “0.6” (see FIG. 16). In this case, the score of the quadruple corresponding to “pair 1” is the highest. The constituent element to which “pair 1” corresponding to the quadruple with the highest score is applied is the constituent element 61. Therefore, the search unit 18 newly selects the component 62 obtained by applying “pair 1” to the component 61 as the component of interest.” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above.), and
repeat repeats application of the embodiment rule to the selected abstract configuration (e.g. P14, second paragraph, “The search unit 18 repeats the same operation when newly selecting a constituent component of interest. ...” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above.),
With respect to claim 6, it is directed to a system configuration derivation method performed by a computer that is disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 6.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUWAHARA (WO 2020179173 A1, hereinafter, “KUWAHARA”, cited from IDS filed on 8/8/2024. Please refer to the attached NPL copy) in view of MARUYAMA et al. (WO 2019244446 A1, hereinafter, “MARUYAMA”, cited from IDS filed on 8/8/2024. Please refer to the attached NPL copy) as applied to claim 1, in further view of Hajian (US 20210142286 A1, hereinafter, “Hajian”).
With respect to claim 4, KUWAHARA as modified by MARUYAMA discloses The system configuration derivation device according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to select
However, this is taught in analogous art, Hajian (e.g. Fig. 8, para [0100], “…. At 802, design metrics for a current project are identified. At 804, parameters for score estimation using the design metrics are defined. At 806, one or more historical projects to use for modeling are selected. At 808, the defined parameters are modeled using the historical project data. At 810, the modeled parameters are processed against constraints. At 812, a score estimation is determined for the processed parameters. …, the technique 800 may include outputting a design associated with the new score estimation, such as by transmitting the design to a client device from which input parameters are received.” Wherein the score estimation reads on a third evaluation value of the certainty. MARUYAMA teaches the second evaluation value, see the cited sections in the office action regarding claims 1 and 3 above, the combination of KUWAHARA, MARUYAMA and Hajian renders the claim obvious).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Hajian because it provides techniques for improving the project design process by using valuable historical project data. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for improving the project design process by using valuable historical project data as suggested by Hajian (see para [0002-0005]).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by KUWAHARA (WO 2020179173 A1, hereinafter, “KUWAHARA”, cited from IDS filed on 8/8/2024. Please refer to the attached NPL copy).
With respect to claim 5, KUWAHARA anticipates A system configuration derivation device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (e.g. Fig. 19, p21 second paragraph, “The main storage unit 12 is used as a work area for data and a temporary save area for data. The main storage unit 12 is, for example, a RAM (Random Access Memory).”); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (e.g. Fig. 19, p21 first paragraph, “The information processing device shown in FIG. 19 may include a DSP (Digital Signal Processor)instead of the CPU 11. Alternatively, the information processing device illustrated in FIG. 19 may include the CPU 11 and the DSP together.”):
associate an evaluation value of a similarity between a first application of an embodiment rule and a second application of an embodiment rule with an embodiment configuration obtained from a new configuration, wherein (d1) the first application of the embodiment rule is obtained in a process of obtaining an embodiment configuration by repeatedly applying an embodiment rule to input of the new configuration including the abstract element, the embodiment configuration being a system configuration not including an abstract element, and wherein (d2) the second application of the embodiment rule is included in a design history indicating a history of the embodiment configuration obtained by repeatedly applying the embodiment rule to an abstract configuration which is a system configuration including the abstract element (e.g. p13 second from last paragraph to p14 last paragraph, p14, third paragraph, “Next, the external design information reflection unit 103 calculates the similarity score as a graph of the abstract configuration d' and the abstract configuration d * (step S1523). The external design information reflecting unit 103 outputs the calculated similarity score as a similarity score regarding the hint information (d, d*) (step S1524). After outputting the similarity score, the external design information reflecting unit 103 returns to the materialization policy selection processing.” wherein d reads on the new configuration, and d* reads on the embodiment configuration in a design history. Also see p10 fifth paragraph from the last to p11 10th paragraph, wherein the materialization rule reads on an embodiment rule); and
output the evaluation value of the similarity (e.g. p14, third paragraph, “… The external design information reflecting unit 103 outputs the calculated similarity score as a similarity score regarding the hint information (d, d*) (step S1524). …”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Akatsu et al., US 20100332444 A1 teaches automatic designing system, automatic designing method and automatic designing program for automatically designing architecture for system components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights