Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“A preceding relationship extraction device comprising:
a preceding degree calculation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to calculate a degree of preceding of time series data xj of an item j with respect to time series data xi of an item i from a plurality of pieces of data;
a similarity calculation unit that calculates a semantic similarity between the time series data xi and the time series data xj;
a surprise degree calculation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to calculate a degree of surprise indicating surprise of combining the item i and the item j based on the degree of preceding and the semantic similarity;
a causality testing unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to test causality of the item i and the item j; and
a presentation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to present the degree of surprise and presence or absence of the causality.”
Claims 5 and 7 recite similar subject matter and are analyzed similarly.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is directed to a series of calculations, or data analyses, that result in presentation of results. A human being equipped with pen and paper or a generic machine would be capable of performing each of these steps.
The additional elements of the claims include various “calculation units,” processors, and the presentation of a “degree of surprise and presence or absence of the causality.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed additional elements do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
The “calculation units” and processors are recited at a high level of generality. They appear to be generic computing hardware elements. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Displaying an output of a data analysis by presenting a “degree of surprise and presence or absence of the causality” is insignificant post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
It is noted that none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or in whole.
The recitation of generic hardware of the “calculation units” and processors are little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Displaying an output of a data analysis by presenting a “degree of surprise and presence or absence of the causality” is insignificant extra-solution activity and is well known (see MPEP 2106.05(g)((3).
None of the additional elements, in part or in whole, appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, or conventional. As such, none of the additional elements appears to be, in part or in whole, significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 are merely directed towards additional limitations that further define data types or further describe analyses that will occur. It is noted that the claimed data definitions and data analysis and extraction steps do not appear to include additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or in whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffman et al. (US Patent 8,874,616) in view of Baughman et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0065684).
As to claim 1, Coffman et al. teaches a preceding relationship extraction device comprising:
a preceding degree calculation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to calculate a degree of preceding of time series data xj of an item j with respect to time series data xi of an item i from a plurality of pieces of data (see Coffman 7:44-56. Data with timestamps may be compared to determine a temporal distance, or “degree of preceding”);
a similarity calculation unit that calculates a semantic similarity between the time series data xi and the time series data xj (see Coffman 7:44-8:2. Semantic attributes may be measured for compatibility);
a surprise degree calculation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to calculate a degree of surprise indicating surprise of combining the item i and the item j based on the degree of preceding and the semantic similarity (see Coffman 7:44-8:2. Multiple attributes may be taken into account to minimize differences between two identifiers. Minimizing differences is minimizing “surprise,” which is not defined by the claims);
Coffman does not explicitly teach:
a causality testing unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to test causality of the item i and the item j; and
a presentation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to present the degree of surprise and presence or absence of the causality.
Baughman teaches:
a causality testing unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to test causality of the item i and the item j (see Baughman paragraph [0096]. A combination of granger causality between time-series data feature and a combination of scores is used to rank features); and
a presentation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to present the degree of surprise and presence or absence of the causality (see Baughman paragraph [0096] and [0101]. Features are ranked and output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Coffman by the teachings of Baughman because both references are directed towards analyzing user data for relationships. Baughman merely adds additional references that can be used to identify time dependent relationships and relationship scores, which will help Coffman to identify additional ways that elements are similar.
As to claim 4, Coffman as modified by Baughman teaches the preceding relationship extraction device according to claim 1, wherein the presentation unit is configured to present a combination of the item i and the item j in a ranking format in descending order of the degree of surprise (see Baughman paragraph [0105]).
As to claim 5, Coffman as modified teaches a preceding relationship extraction device comprising:
a preceding degree calculation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to test causality between time series data xj of an item j and time series data xi of an item i from a plurality of pieces of data and calculates a degree of preceding of the item j with respect to the item i by a test result (see Coffman 7:44-56 and the rejection of claim 1);
a similarity calculation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to calculate a semantic similarity between the time series data xi and the time series data xj (see Coffman 7:44-8:2 and the rejection of claim 1);
a surprise degree calculation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to calculate a degree of surprise indicating surprise of combining the item i and the item j based on the degree of preceding and the semantic similarity (see Coffman 7:44-8:2 and the rejection of claim 1); and
Coffman does not explicitly show:
a presentation unit, implemented using one or more processors, configured to present the degree of surprise (see Baughman paragraph [0096] and [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Coffman by the teachings of Baughman because both references are directed towards analyzing user data for relationships. Baughman merely adds additional references that can be used to identify time dependent relationships and relationship scores, which will help Coffman to identify additional ways that elements are similar.
As to claim 7, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffman et al. (US Patent 8,874,616) in view of Baughman et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0065684), and further in view of Dowell et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0138597).
As to claim 2, Coffman as modified teaches the preceding relationship extraction device according to claim 1.
Coffman does not teach wherein the preceding degree calculation unit is configured to calculate the degree of preceding based on a cross correlation function of the time series data xi and the time series data xj.
Dowell teaches wherein the preceding degree calculation unit is configured to calculate the degree of preceding based on a cross correlation function of the time series data xi and the time series data xj (see Dowell paragraph [0074]. Dowell shows using a cross correlation function to calculate a degree of preceding for time series data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Coffman by the teachings of Dowell because both references are directed towards analyzing user data for relationships. Dowell merely adds additional references that can be used to identify time dependent relationships, which will help Coffman to identified additional ways that elements are similar.
As to claim 3, Coffman as modified teaches the preceding relationship extraction device according to claim 1.
Coffman does not teach wherein the similarity calculation unit is configured to calculate] cosine similarity between semantic vectors of the item i and the item j.
Dowell teaches wherein the similarity calculation unit is configured to calculate] cosine similarity between semantic vectors of the item i and the item j (see Dowell paragraph [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Coffman by the teachings of Dowell because both references are directed towards analyzing user data for relationships. Dowell merely adds additional references that can be used to identify time dependent relationships, which will help Coffman to identify additional ways that elements are similar.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffman et al. (US Patent 8,874,616) in view of Baughman et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0065684), and further in view of Baughman et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0314199, hereinafter Baughman ‘199)
As to claim 6, Coffman as modified teaches the preceding relationship extraction device according to claim 5.
Coffman as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the preceding degree calculation unit is configured to calculate the degree of preceding based on a probability that a value equal to or greater than a realized value is obtained in a distribution curve calculated by the Granger causality test.
Baughman ‘199 teaches wherein the preceding degree calculation unit is configured to calculate the degree of preceding based on a probability that a value equal to or greater than a realized value is obtained in a distribution curve calculated by the Granger causality test (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Coffman by the teachings of Baughman ‘199 because both references are directed towards analyzing user data for relationships. Baughman ‘199 merely adds additional data calculations that can be used to identify causality relationships, which will help Coffman to identify additional ways that elements are similar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152