DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 08/27/2024 for Application number 18/841,863. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a graph description unit configured to describe…in claim 1.
a model construction unit configured to perform construction and training…in claim 1.
an algorithm selection unit configured to select a utilization algorithm for…in claim 1.
a graph storage unit configured to store… in claim 2.
a data storage unit configured to store … in claim 2.
an algorithm processing unit configured to perform…in claim 3
a first step of showing domain knowledge… in claim 5.
a second step of performing construction and training… in claim 5
a third step of selecting a utilization algorithm for… in claim 5.
a fourth step of performing preprocessing of the graph data… in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
[a graph description unit configured to] describe domain knowledge about a target system as a definition of a node or an edge in a graph including nodes and edges indicating a relationship between nodes can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
[a model construction unit configured to perform construction and training of a prediction model] for predicting a response variable based on an explanatory variable for the target system can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
[an algorithm selection unit configured to] select a utilization algorithm for utilizing domain knowledge described by the graph for construction and training of the prediction model, wherein a utilization algorithm that is selectable by the algorithm selection unit includes at least one or more of a first utilization algorithm using a feature derived from the graph as an explanatory variable of the prediction model, a second utilization algorithm applying a relationship between nodes in the graph to a relationship between explanatory variables of the prediction model, and a third utilization algorithm applying a definition of a node in the graph to a training condition of the prediction model can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “a graph description unit configured to…”, “a model construction unit configured to perform construction and training of a prediction model for predicting…” and “[an algorithm selection unit configured to]”. These elements invoke 112(f) and can be interpreted to be a part of a computer as disclosed in FIG. 1 of the drawings and ¶0015 of the specification. Thus, these elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do 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 of utilizing a graph description unit, a model construction unit, and an algorithm selection unit to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites:
a graph storage unit configured to store a definition of a node and an edge in the graph described by the graph description unit as graph data; This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Please see MPEP 2106.05(g).
a data storage unit configured to store data of the target system associated with a node in the graph as target data, wherein a data item of the target data is included as an explanatory variable of the prediction model. This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Please see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv), “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites:
an algorithm processing unit configured to perform, according to a utilization algorithm selected by the algorithm selection unit, preprocessing of the graph data stored in the graph storage unit and/or the target data stored in the data storage unit, wherein when the first utilization algorithm is selected by the algorithm selection unit, the algorithm processing unit extracts a latent variable of the graph as the feature using the graph data and the target data. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein a node in the graph includes an observation variable node representing a data item observable from the target system, a control variable node representing a data item used as a control item in the target system, a disturbance node representing a disturbance of the target system, and a block node representing a relationship between nodes in the target system. This limitation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 5-8, it recites features similar to claims 1-4 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Regarding Claims 9-12, they recite features similar to claims 1-4 and 5-8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. ("JP 2021002126 A", cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 08/27/2024, hereinafter "Hasebe") in view of Michiko ("JP 2021012501 A", cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 08/27/2024 hereinafter "Michiko").
Regarding claim 1, Hasebe teaches A domain knowledge utilization system comprising:
a graph description unit configured to describe domain knowledge about a target system as a definition of a node or an edge in a graph including nodes and edges indicating a relationship between nodes (“The skilled user draws the type 2 graph information 31b on the whiteboard in place of or in addition to the type 1 graph information 31a. A skilled user draws a node "item A", a node "item B", ..., A node "item F". A skilled user connects these nodes with a link (arrow) having an orientation, and describes the item value a1, the item value a2, ..., The item value e2 in association with the link. When the link is followed, one of the item value f1, the item value f2, ... Of the item F is finally reached” [¶0016]);
a model construction unit configured to perform construction and training of a prediction model for predicting a response variable based on an explanatory variable for the target system (“FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating a multidimensional model 33. The multidimensional model 33 is named "model" because the essence of the multidimensional model 33 is a mathematical formula (function) that defines the relationship between a plurality of variables.” [¶0021]); and
wherein a utilization algorithm that is selectable by the algorithm selection unit includes at least one or more of a first utilization algorithm using a feature derived from the graph as an explanatory variable of the prediction model, a second utilization algorithm applying a relationship between nodes in the graph to a relationship between explanatory variables of the prediction model, and a third utilization algorithm applying a definition of a node in the graph to a training condition of the prediction model. (“Now, for the sake of simplification of the explanation, the explanatory variables of the function are "item A", "item B" and "item C" in FIG. 1, and the objective variable of the function is the "item" in FIG. Let it be "F" [¶0021; note: Under BRI, the claim recites at least “one or more of” thus the examiner is only required to map to one of the corresponding elements. Therefore, the citation provided corresponds to “a first utilization algorithm using a feature derived from the graph as an explanatory variable of the prediction model”])
However Hasebe fails to explicitly teach an algorithm selection unit configured to select a utilization algorithm for utilizing domain knowledge described by the graph for construction and training of the prediction model,
Michiko teaches an algorithm selection unit configured to select a utilization algorithm for utilizing domain knowledge described by the graph for construction and training of the prediction model (“The machine learning support device 10 may be configured to include a plurality of machine learning units, each of which employs a different machine learning algorithm (not shown)… As a result, it is possible to provide a machine learning support device capable of selecting an optimum algorithm from a plurality of machine learning algorithms and significantly improving reliability and prediction accuracy” [pg. 23, ¶6-7])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hasebe’s teachings by implementing an algorithm selection process as taught by Michiko. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would significantly improve reliability and prediction accuracy. [pg. 23, ¶7, Michiko]
Regarding claim 2, Hasebe/Michiko teaches The domain knowledge utilization system according to claim 1, further comprising:
Hasebe teaches a graph storage unit configured to store a definition of a node and an edge in the graph described by the graph description unit as graph data (“The auxiliary storage device 15 stores graph information 31 (31a and 31b), actual information 32, and a multidimensional model 33.” [¶0019]); and
a data storage unit configured to store data of the target system associated with a node in the graph as target data, wherein a data item of the target data is included as an explanatory variable of the prediction model. (“The auxiliary storage device 15 stores graph information 31 (31a and 31b), actual information 32, and a multidimensional model 33.” [¶0019; See further ¶0021 “Now, for the sake of simplification of the explanation, the explanatory variables of the function are "item A", "item B" and "item C" in FIG. 1, and the objective variable of the function is the "item" in FIG. Let it be "F"])
Regarding claims 5 and 6, they are substantially similar to claims 1-2 respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art, and reasoning applying.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, they are substantially similar to claims 1-2 respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art, and reasoning applying.
Claims 3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe in view of Michiko and further in view of Zhou et al. ("Network Representation Learning: From Preprocessing, Feature Extraction to Node Embedding", hereinafter "Zhou").
Regarding claim 3, Hasebe/Michiko teaches The domain knowledge utilization system according to claim 2, however fails to explicitly teach further comprising:
an algorithm processing unit configured to perform, according to a utilization algorithm selected by the algorithm selection unit, preprocessing of the graph data stored in the graph storage unit and/or the target data stored in the data storage unit, wherein when the first utilization algorithm is selected by the algorithm selection unit, the algorithm processing unit extracts a latent variable of the graph as the feature using the graph data and the target data.
Zhou teaches an algorithm processing unit configured to perform, according to a utilization algorithm selected by the algorithm selection unit, preprocessing of the graph data stored in the graph storage unit and/or the target data stored in the data storage unit (“The first stage is the network data preprocessing, which is responsible for obtaining the desired network structure information from the original input net work. During this stage, the prime aim is to employ a learning-task suitable network preprocessing method to transform the input network into a set of internal data structures, which is more suit able for structural feature extraction in the next stage” [pg. 7, §3, ¶1; See further §3.1 provides more details of the preprocessing of graph data]), wherein when the first utilization algorithm is selected by the algorithm selection unit, the algorithm processing unit extracts a latent variable of the graph as the feature using the graph data and the target data. (“The main task of NRL is to find out the hidden network features and encode such features as node embedding vectors in a low-dimensional space… For example, nodes that are closer in the original network should also be closer in the latent representation space in which the node embedding vectors are defined.” [pg. 10, §3.2, Network Feature Extraction])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hasebe’s/Michiko’s teachings in order to implement the preprocessing and feature extraction stages as taught by Zhou. One would have been motivated to make this modification as to employ a learning-task suitable network preprocessing method to transform the input network into a set of internal data structures, which is more suit able for structural feature extraction in the next stage. [pg. 7, §3, ¶1, Zhou])
Regarding claims 7 and 11, they are substantially similar to claim 3 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art, and reasoning applying.
Claims 4, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe in view of Michiko and further in view of Morrison et al. ("US 20080244449 A1", hereinafter "Morrison").
Regarding claim 4, Hasebe/Michiko teaches The domain knowledge utilization system according to wherein
Hasebe teaches a node in the graph includes an observation variable node representing a data item observable from the target system (“The skilled user draws the type 2 graph information 31b on the whiteboard in place of or in addition to the type 1 graph information 31a. A skilled user draws a node "item A", a node "item B", ..., A node "item F".” [¶0016]),
and
a block node representing a relationship between nodes in the target system (“The multidimensional model 33 is named "model" because the essence of the multidimensional model 33 is a mathematical formula (function) that defines the relationship between a plurality of variables. Now, for the sake of simplification of the explanation, the explanatory variables of the function are "item A", "item B" and "item C" in FIG. 1, and the objective variable of the function is the "item" in FIG. Let it be "F".” [¶0021])
However Hasebe/Michiko fails to explicitly teach a control variable node representing a data item used as a control item in the target system,
a disturbance node representing a disturbance of the target system,
Morrison teaches a control variable node representing a data item used as a control item in the target system (“The system 100 may operate by attempting to maintain a "controlled variable" (CV) at or near a desired value (a setpoint) or within a desired operating range. The system 100 attempts to maintain the controlled variable by altering one or more "manipulated variables" (MVs), such as an opening of a valve or a speed of a turbine.” [¶0039]),
a disturbance node representing a disturbance of the target system (“A "disturbance variable" (DV) represents a condition that affects a controlled variable, where the disturbance variable can be considered by the system 100 when altering the manipulated variables but generally cannot be controlled (such as ambient temperature).” [¶0039]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hasebe’s/Michiko’s teachings in order to apply a control and disturbance variable as taught by Morrison. One would have been motivated to make this modification to classify data items represented by graph nodes according to observed/controlled variables. [¶0004, Morrison]
Regarding claims 8 and 12, they are substantially similar to claim 4 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art, and reasoning applying.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/ PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights