DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/847,737 filed 9/17/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Visbal et al. (US Patent Pub 2016/0180451).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visbal et al. (US Patent Pub 2016/0180451) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0010465).
Priority
This application is a national stage of PCT/JP2023/009486 filed 3/13/2023, which claims foreign priority to Japanese Application JP2022-050761, filed 3/25/2022. Certified foreign priority documents have been received on 9/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/17/2024 has been fully considered, initialed, and signed by the Examiner. A copy is attached to this Office action.
The information disclosure statement filed 7/10/2025 has been fully considered, initialed, and signed by the Examiner. A copy is attached to this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 14-PS11, Fig. 21-CT11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is essentially written as a claim. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim limitations “acquisition unit” and “changing unit” in claims 1-11, “output unit” in claims 12-14, “acquisition unit”, “output unit”, and “input unit” in claims 16-19 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language, such as, “acquire,” “change,” “output,” and ”receive” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim(s) 1-14 and 16-19 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: The computer, which implements the information processing apparatus and the terminal apparatus at paras. 0272-278
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “information provided” in line 5. It is unclear what “information” is being referred to. There are two specific types of information including “observer information” and “observation target information.” However, “information provided” could be interpreted as any type of information provided in any manner, from any source to any recipient. Clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites “distinguishable manner,” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “distinguishable manner” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would not be possible to ascertain what manner of prompting would be a “distinguishable manner”.
Claim 7 is rejected because it depends on a rejected claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of: (1) an acquisition unit that acquires observation information regarding a state of observation of an observation target by an observer and (2) a changing unit that changes a degree of detail of a cluster that clusters observation target information regarding a state of the observation target on a basis of the state of the observation indicated by the observation information.
Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” The mental process grouping covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Limitations can also be deemed insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Limitation (1) is directed to IESA in the form of mere data gathering regarding observation information. Limitation (2) is directed to a mental process of changing a degree of detail of a cluster that clusters observation target information based on the state of the observation in the observation information. The limitation of “changes” is not recited with any specificity that would make the step impractical or unreasonable for a person to perform. The broadest reasonable interpretation of limitation (2) simply requires changing some detail of the cluster, which can reasonably and practically be performed by a person in the mind with the aid of pen and paper or with a computer as a tool.
The recited “acquisition unit” and “changing unit” is/are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic components performing generic computer functions.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized as mental processes.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
In this case, as explained above, claim 1 merely recites an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. As discussed above, limitation (1) is directed to IESA. Limitation (2) is directed to a mental step or making some modification/change to a cluster of observation target information based on the state of the observation. The limitation merely recites general steps of changing a degree of detail of a cluster based on a state of observation based on the received observation information. It does not recite any of the steps and components of the steps with any specificity that would provide meaningful limits to the abstract idea and integrate it into a practical application. While claim 1 recite additional components in the form of an acquisition unit and a changing unit, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
For at least these reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. In this case, claim 1 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (1) is directed to IESA of receiving or transmitting data, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Limitation (2), as explained above, is recited at a high level of generality and does not provide sufficient specificity to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 2 and 3
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 2 and 3 depend on claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 2 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of a change in the state of the observation indicated by the observation information and claim 3 recites the additional limitations of (2) wherein the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information in a case where the state of the observation indicated by the observation information satisfies a condition regarding a change. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, [analyze each limitation]. Accordingly, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claims 2 and 3 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 4-7
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 4-7 depends on claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 4 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including observer information regarding a state of the observer and (2) the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the state of the observer indicated by the observer information; claim 5 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observer information indicating an interest of the observer and (2) the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the interest of the observer indicated by the observer information; claim 6 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observer information indicating an operation of the observer with respect to information provided and (2) the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the operation of the observer indicated by the observer information; claim 7 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observer information indicating the operation of the observer with respect to a result of clustering of the observation target information and (2) he changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the operation on the result of clustering of the observer indicated by the observer information. Claims 4-7 recite an acquisition unit that acquires observation information including different types of observer information and making changes to the degree of detail of the cluster of observation target information based on the type of observer information. Limitation (1) of each claim is directed to IESA in the form of mere data gathering as they simply acquire different types of observer information without recite any specifics about how the information is acquired. Limitation (2) of each claim is directed to a mental step of observing the acquired information, evaluating it, and performing the change to the cluster as judged by a person. The limitation in each claim, does not recite sufficient specifics to demonstrate any asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for much of the same reasons discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claims 4-7 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 8-11
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 8-11 depends on claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 8 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including the observation target information regarding the state of the observation target and (2) the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the state of the observation target indicated by the observation target information; claim 9 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including the observation target information indicating a sensing result of the observation target by a sensor and (2) the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the sensing result of the observation target indicated by the observation target information; claim 10 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including the observation target information regarding an activity of the observation target and (2) the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the activity of the observation target indicated by the observation target information; claim 11 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including the observation target information regarding an activity amount of the observation target and (2) the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the activity amount of the observation target indicated by the observation target information. Claims 8-11 recite an acquisition unit that acquires observation information including different types of observation target information and making changes to the degree of detail of the cluster of observation target information based on the type of observation target information. Limitation (1) of each claim is directed to IESA in the form of mere data gathering as they simply acquire different types of observation target information without recite any specifics about how the information is acquired. Limitation (2) of each claim is directed to a mental step of observing the acquired information, evaluating it, and performing the change to the cluster as judged by a person. The limitation in each claim, does not recite sufficient specifics to demonstrate any asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for much of the same reasons discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claims 8-11 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 12-14
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 12-14 depend on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 12 recites the additional limitations of (1) an output unit that outputs a clustering result of the observation target information based on the cluster of the degree of detail changed; claim 13 recites wherein the output unit is configured to transmit the clustering result of the observation target information to a terminal apparatus; claim 14 recites wherein the output unit is configured to output inducement information prompting an operation on the clustering result of the observation target information. Each of these additional limitations are directed to IESA of outputting data. None of these additional limitations provide sufficient specificity as to how the information is output that would adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, these additional limitations are directed to outputting data or receiving or transmitting data over a network, which are well understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claims 12-14 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 15 recites essentially the same subject matter as claim 1 in the form of a method. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claim 16 recites the limitations of: (1) an acquisition unit that acquires a clustering result of observation target information regarding a state of an observation target based on a state of observation of the observation target by an observer and (2) an output unit that outputs inducement information prompting an operation on the clustering result of the observation target information.
Limitation (1) is directed to IESA in the form of mere data gathering of a clustering result of observation target information. Limitation (2) is also directed to IESA in the form of merely outputting data, which is inducement information, which can be observed by a person viewing the output.
The recited “acquisition unit” and “output unit” is/are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic components performing generic computer functions.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized as mental processes.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, as discussed above, limitation (1) is directed to IESA. Limitation (2) is also directed to IESA. While claim 16 recite additional components in the form of an acquisition unit and a output unit, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
For at least these reasons, claim 16 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claim 16 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (1) and (2) are directed to IESA of receiving or transmitting data, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 16 is nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 17 and 18
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 17 and 18 depend on claim 16 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 2 recites the additional limitations of wherein the output unit is configured to output the inducement information indicating a target for which the operation is to be prompted in the clustering result of the observation target information in a distinguishable manner and claim 18 recites the additional limitation of the output unit is configured to display the inducement information. Claim 17 recites additional limitations that are directed to IESA and a mental process. The IESA is in the form of merely outputting and providing data and the mental process is the step of observation of the inducement information that is presented to the person. Similarly, claim 18 recites an additional limitation that is directed to IESA. Neither claim recites limitations with sufficient specificity to adequately demonstrate any improvement asserted in the specification. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, as these limitations are directed to IESA that are well understood, routine, and convention, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claims 17 and 18 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 19
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 19 depends on claim 16 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 19 recites the additional limitations of an input unit that receives the operation on the clustering result of the observation target information from a user who uses the terminal apparatus. The additional limitation is directed to IESA in the form of receiving information (i.e., the operation) from a user. Claim 19 also recites an input unit. However, it is recited at a high level of generality and does not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, as discussed above, the limitation is directed to IESA in the form of receiving information, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 20 recites essentially the same subject matter as claim 16 in the form of a method. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the rejection.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Visbal et al. (US Patent Pub 2016/0180451) (Visbal).
In regards to claim 1, Visbal discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires observation information regarding a state of observation of an observation target by an observer (Visbal at paras. 0120-121)1; and
a changing unit that changes a degree of detail of a cluster that clusters observation target information regarding a state of the observation target on a basis of the state of the observation indicated by the observation information. (Visbal at paras. 0120-121).2
In regards to claim 2, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of a change in the state of the observation indicated by the observation information. Visbal at paras. 0121, 0157.3.
In regards to claim 3, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information in a case where the state of the observation indicated by the observation information satisfies a condition regarding a change. Visbal at para. 0121.4
In regards to claim 4, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including observer information regarding a state of the observer (Visbal at paras. 0012, 0140, 0146)5, and
the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the state of the observer indicated by the observer information. (Visbal at paras. 0083, 0120, 0158)6
In regards to claim 5, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4,
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observer information indicating an interest of the observer (Visbal at paras. 0012, 0140, 0146)7, and
the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the interest of the observer indicated by the observer information. (Visbal at paras. 0083, 0120, 0158)8
In regards to claim 6, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4,
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observer information indicating an operation of the observer with respect to information provided (Visbal at paras. 0012, 0140, 0146)9, and
the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the operation of the observer indicated by the observer information. (Visbal at paras. 0083, 0120, 0158)10
In regards to claim 7, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6,
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observer information indicating the operation of the observer with respect to a result of clustering of the observation target information (Visbal at paras. 0012, 0083, 0140, 0146)11, and
the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the operation on the result of clustering of the observer indicated by the observer information. (Visbal at paras. 0083, 0120, 0158)12
In regards to claim 8, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including the observation target information regarding the state of the observation target (Visbal at paras. 0199)13, and
the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the state of the observation target indicated by the observation target information. (Visbal at paras. 0120-121, 0199).14
In regards to claim 10, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including the observation target information regarding an activity of the observation target (Visbal at paras. 0199)15, and
the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the activity of the observation target indicated by the observation target information. (Visbal at paras. 0120-121, 0199).16
In regards to claim 11, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including the observation target information regarding an activity amount of the observation target (Visbal at paras. 0199)17, and
the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the activity amount of the observation target indicated by the observation target information. (Visbal at paras. 0120-121, 0199).18
In regards to claim 12, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an output unit that outputs a clustering result of the observation target information based on the cluster of the degree of detail changed. Visbal at paras. 0083, 0103.19
In regards to claim 13, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the output unit is configured to transmit the clustering result of the observation target information to a terminal apparatus. Visbal at paras. 0083, 0099.20
In regards to claim 14, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the output unit is configured to output inducement information prompting an operation on the clustering result of the observation target information. Visbal at para. 0150.21
Claim 15 is essentially the same as claim 1 in the form of a method. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
In regards to claim 16, Visbal discloses a terminal apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires a clustering result of observation target information regarding a state of an observation target based on a state of observation of the observation target by an observer (Visbal at paras. 0083, 0120-121)22; and
an output unit that outputs inducement information prompting an operation on the clustering result of the observation target information. Visbal at para. 0150.23
In regards to claim 17, Visbal discloses the terminal apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the output unit is configured to output the inducement information indicating a target for which the operation is to be prompted in the clustering result of the observation target information in a distinguishable manner. Visbal at para. 0150.24
In regards to claim 18, Visbal discloses the terminal apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the output unit is configured to display the inducement information. Visbal at para. 0150.25
In regards to claim 19, Visbal discloses the terminal apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising an input unit that receives the operation on the clustering result of the observation target information from a user who uses the terminal apparatus. Visbal at paras. 0150-1.26
Claim 20 is essentially the same as claim 16 in the form of a method. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visbal et al. (US Patent Pub 2016/0180451) (Visbal) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0010465) (Mochizuki).
In regards to claim 9, Visbal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the observation information including the observation target information indicating a state of the observation target (Visbal at paras. 0199)27, and
the changing unit is configured to change the degree of detail of the cluster that clusters the observation target information on a basis of the state of the observation target indicated by the observation target information. (Visbal at paras. 0120-121, 0199).28
Visbal does not expressly disclose the observation information including observation target information indicating a sensing result of the observation target by a sensor and the change of the degree of detail of the cluster is on a basis of the sensing result.
Mochizuki discloses a system and method for abstracting object information from image data and grouping object information that meet a sufficient level of similarity. The information is received from a sensing unit (i.e., sensor) about an object of the image (i.e., observation target). Mochizuki at paras. 0088-92. Sensing results include face feature scores about a person. Mochizuki at para. 0091. A user can initiate merging of two different person groups into one person group (i.e., changing the degree of detail of the cluster …) based on new face feature scores (i.e., sensing result). Mochizuki at paras. 0160, 0162.
Visbal and Mochizuki are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of clustering data and regrouping/merging the clusters.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Visbal by adding the features of the observation information including observation target information indicating a sensing result of the observation target by a sensor and the change of the degree of detail of the cluster is on a basis of the sensing result, as disclosed by Mochizuki.
The motivation for doing so would have been to perform a correction operation if the two groups should actually refer to the same object. Mochizuki at para. 0162.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Harpaz et al. (US Patent Pub 2023/0371872) discloses a system and method for quantifying attention of a subject being monitored.
Lum et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0297642) discloses a system and method for mapping patient sensor data for treatment assistance.
Kumaresan et al. (US Patent Pub 2023/0214416) discloses a system and method for multi-dimensional clustering and correlation with interactive UI.
Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2011/0295773) discloses a system and method for user assisted clustering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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 LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Information about the data item clusters to be analyzed (i.e., acquire observation info regarding a state of the observation…) is detected (i.e., acquired). This can include information about the data item clusters or other characteristics or criteria.
2 Based on the information about the data item clusters and/or criteria or characteristics, clusters can be merged (i.e., changing a degree of detail of a cluster …).
3 As data items are added to a cluster (i.e., change state of the observation), the number of data items in a cluster has changed. This could result in merging of clusters if they meet the required criteria.
4 A cluster can be merged with another cluster if it meets the minimum number of data items as a result of more data items being added to the cluster (i.e., satisfies a condition regarding a change).
5 Information about what type of things interest the analyst are received, such as through a selection box or other criteria.
6 Analyst’s interests and criteria (i.e., state of the observer) is utilized to merge clusters based on related data items (i.e., change the degree of detail of the cluster … basis of the state of the observer).
7 Information about what type of things interest the analyst are received, such as through a selection box or other criteria.
8 Analyst’s interests and criteria (i.e., interest of the observer) is utilized to merge clusters based on related data items (i.e., change the degree of detail of the cluster … basis of the interest of the observer).
9 Information about what type of things interest the analyst are received, such as through a selection box or other criteria (i.e., operation with respect to information provided).
10 Analyst’s interests and criteria, which are received as a result of a user selection (i.e., operation) is utilized to merge clusters based on related data items (i.e., change the degree of detail of the cluster … basis of the operation of the observer).
11 Information about what type of things interest the analyst are received, such as through a selection box or other criteria (i.e., operation with respect to information provided). The selection box can select a cluster, such as a resultant cluster, as a cluster of interest.
12 Analyst’s interests and criteria, which are received as a result of a user selection (i.e., operation) is utilized to merge clusters based on related data items (i.e., change the degree of detail of the cluster … basis of the operation on the result of the clustering of the observer).
13 New data items and other information (i.e., observation information … regarding the state of the observation target) can be detected or received.
14 Clusters can be merged as related data items are found or when a minimum number is found (i.e., change the degree of detail of the cluster … basis of the state of the observation target).
15 New data items and other information (i.e., observation information … regarding the activity of the observation target) can be detected or received. Data items can be events or activity.
16 Clusters can be merged as related data items are found or when a minimum number is found (i.e., change the degree of detail of the cluster … basis of the activity of the observation target). As more data items are found, more activity is detected, which can result in clusters merging.
17 New data items and other information (i.e., observation information … regarding the activity of the observation target) can be detected or received. Data items can be events or activity.
18 Clusters can be merged as related data items are found or when a minimum number is found (i.e., change the degree of detail of the cluster … basis of the amount of activity of the observation target). As more data items are found or received, more activity is detected, which can result in clusters merging based on the number of data items (i.e., amount of activity).
19 A user interface at a client device displays a resulting cluster.
20 Client computer (i.e., terminal apparatus) displays (i.e,. output) a resul