Detailed Action
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification lacks antecedent basis for the “planning graphical user interface” recited in the independent claims. The Applicant is perhaps attempting to refer to the “launch GUI” described during step 404, as that’s the only one that provides options and parameters. However, if this is the case, the step of displaying the planning graphical user interface and/or launch GUI is also recited out of order in the claims.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claims 4, 11, and 18 for having the following informalities: it is unclear how many perspectives are actually required by the claims. On one hand, the claim language says “one or more,” but on the other hand, it seems to require at least two perspectives (at least one pessimistic and at least one optimistic).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rebecca Eifler and Jörg Hoffmann, Iterative Planning with Plan-Space Explanations: A Tool and User Study, Proceedings of the International Workshop of Explainable AI Planning (XAIP’20) (Nov. 19, 2020), available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09705 (“Eifler”).1
On page 3, lines 196–197, Eifler incorporates by reference a demonstration of the tool disclosed in Eifler’s paper, available at <https://www.youtu.be/watch?v=M958F14HL8I> (hereafter “Eifler Demo”).2
Claim 1
Eifler discloses:
A system for performing assumption-based planning, comprising: a computer, comprising a processor and memory, and configured to:
Eifler teaches a tool that “runs in standard Web browsers.” Eifler 2 ll. 62–64. A web browser, by definition, is “a computer program used for accessing sites or information on a network (such as the Internet).” Browser, Meriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/browser>. Eifler’s tool—or at least a standard Web browser accessing Eifler’s tool—thus inherently discloses a computer with a processor and memory for running the disclosed tool.
generate and display an assumption creation graphical user interface, wherein the assumption creation graphical user interface is configured to enable a creation of one or more assumptions;
“The platform offers two ways to define plan properties.” Eifler 3 ll. 239–240. There are three categories of “properties,” one of which includes “constraints” (i.e., the claimed “assumptions”). Eifler 3 ll. 238–239. The two ways are as follows: “Firstly, users familiar with LTLf can define plan properties by explicitly stating the corresponding LTLf formula and action sets.” Eifler 3 ll. 241–243. Alternatively, the user interface provides a list of selectable templates, see Eifler Demo at 3:32–3:42, which templates are provided with a domain and problem file. Eifler 3 ll. 244–248. “Furthermore, it is possible to impose constraints between the variables, like
L
i
and
L
j
have to be connected. This allows to define plan properties more easily as one only has to select the concrete instantiation.” Eifler 4 ll. 215–254.
generate and display a planning graphical user interface, wherein the planning graphical user interface is configured to enable a selection of one or more options and one or more parameters;
“The platform supports conducting user studies with the online recruitment platform Prolific [2018]. For user study developers it provides interfaces for setting up and evaluating an user study. A user study can be composed of multiple demos, links to external questionnaires and additional descriptions and instructions.” Eifler 3 ll. 223–228
generate and display a goal selection graphical user interface configured to receive a selection of one or more goals for planning;
“To compute a plan, the user has to select the hard goals. The global hard goals are automatically added. All not selected plan properties are treated as soft goals. The corresponding interface for the example task is shown in Figure 5.” Eifler 4 ll. 281–285
generate and display a lever selection graphical user interface configured to receive a selection of one or more levers for the planning;
“The fourth column hosts the interface for selecting the hard goals for the next iteration. This interface is used by end users and test persons for iterative planning.” Eifler 4 ll. 276–278.
update the lever selection graphical user interface in response to receiving a selection of the one or more levers;
As shown in Figure 3 (page 4), and in the video, this fourth column provides checkboxes for each of the hard goals, so that the user can select them for the next iteration.
generate and display an input adjustment graphical user interface configured to display the one or more selected levers and receive one or more selections to toggle the one or more selected levers on or off;
After selecting the goals, the fourth column is updated to show goals that are checked for selection, and goals that remain unchecked. See Eifler Figure 3 and Eifler Demo 2:10–2:15.
perform a planning analysis using the one or more selected goals and the one or more selected levers;
“After confirming the choice, a plan for the selection is computed.” Eifler 4 ll. 287–288.
generate and display a planning analysis summary graphical user interface configured to display the one or more selected goals and the one or more selected levers used in performing the planning analysis; and
“For a solvable selection of hard goals, the tool provides the following result: the selected hard goals, the soft goals which are additionally satisfied although not enforced, the unsatisfied soft goals, the plan as a sequence of actions, the plan as an animation.” Eifler 4 ll. 289–296.
generate and display a response plan graphical user interface configured to display a response plan based on the planning analysis.
“In order to get more insights into the space of plan, the user can ask questions about the current plan. More specifically, he can select a subset
P
N
of the plan properties not satisfied by the current plan. The selection is then interpreted as the question: “Why are the plan properties in
P
N
not satisfied?”. The interface to ask a question is depicted in Figure 7. The resulting question would be: ‘Why does the blue truck not visit the cafe?’” Eifler 5 ll. 303–310.
Claim 2
Eifler discloses the system of Claim 1,
wherein the one or more assumptions comprise one or more explicit data objects that affect one or more managed resources.
With respect to the “constraints” category of plan properties, “users familiar with LTLf can define plan properties by explicitly stating the corresponding LTLf formula and action sets.” Eifler 3 ll. 241–243. Alternatively, the user interface provides a list of selectable templates, see Eifler Demo at 3:32–3:42, which templates are provided with a domain and problem file. Eifler 3 ll. 244–248. “Furthermore, it is possible to impose constraints between the variables, like
L
i
and
L
j
have to be connected. This allows to define plan properties more easily as one only has to select the concrete instantiation.” Eifler 4 ll. 215–254.
Claim 3
Eifler discloses the system of Claim 1,
wherein at least one of the one or more assumptions is expressed as a machine-executable logical expression.
“Firstly, users familiar with LTLf can define plan properties by explicitly stating the corresponding LTLf formula and action sets.” Eifler 3 ll. 241–243. LTLf formulae are logical expressions, e.g., “The road between
L
i
and
L
j
is used with truck
T
i
,” and Eifler 3 ll. 249–250, and they are executable in the sense that the machine computes a plan, see Eifler 4 ll. 287–288, taking those formulae into account.
Claim 5
Eifler discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer is further configured to:
receive an adjustment to an order of a priority of the one or more selected goals.
“To compute a plan, the user has to select the hard goals. The global hard goals are automatically added. All not selected plan properties are treated as soft goals,” Eifler 4 ll. 281–283, meaning that for every user input that selects a goal checkbox, it is prioritized over the soft goals, and for every user input that de-selects a goal checkbox, it is de-prioritized under the hard goals.
Claim 7
Eifler discloses the system of Claim 1,
wherein assumption data associated with each of the one or more assumptions comprises one or more of: an assumption type, a confidence level, a scope, an expected timeframe, an impact and a mitigation.
One form of constraints the user may define are “constraints between the variables, like
L
i
and
L
j
have to be connected.” Eifler 4 ll. 215–254. This at least discloses an assumption that includes a “scope,” where the scope of the assumption is that it only applies to
L
i
and
L
j
.
Claims 8–10, 12, and 14
Claims 8–10, 12, and 14 recite exactly the same method that the system of claims 1–3, 5, and 7 performs as part of its normal operation. Therefore, the findings from those rejections anticipate the method version of those claims. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claims 15–17 and 19
Claims 15–17 and 19 recite a broader but fully encompassing version of the memory component of corresponding claims 1–3 and 5 (including the instructions stored thereon). Therefore, claims 15–17 and 19 are rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claims 1–3 and 5.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Eifler and Wani teach claim 4, 11, and 18.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eifler as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0384054 A1 (“Wani”).
Claim 4
Eifler teaches the system of Claim 1. It could be argued that Eifler further teaches the computer of claim 4, because claim 4 ultimately requires a minimum of one set of assumptions (which is what Eifler teaches).
However, assuming for the sake of argument that claim 4 requires more than one set of assumptions—i.e., a pessimistic perspective and an optimistic perspective—such an arrangement was known via Wani, which teaches a computer configured to do several of the operations of claim 1 (e.g., setting up goals, parameters, and assumptions), and further wherein the computer is further configured to:
bundle the one or more assumptions into one or more perspectives, wherein the one or more perspectives comprise one or more of: one or more risks combined into a pessimistic perspective and one or more opportunities combined into an optimistic perspective.
“In the illustrated example, the scenarios include a baseline scenario 402 with a 5% probability of at least one infection on day 1, a scenario A 404 with a 4% probability of at least one infection on day 1, and a scenario B 406 with a 2% probability of at least one infection on day 1. For each scenario, a graphical bar is presented with a size related to the highest number of cases for severe outbreaks.” Wani ¶ 36.
As shown in FIG. 4B, the different scenarios are based on optimistic assumptions with greater opportunities (e.g., greater social distancing 428 and remote work 426 to prevent the spread of a virus), or pessimistic assumptions with higher risks (e.g., lower mask compliance 424 in the baseline scenario).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wani’s technique of bundling assumptions into different pessimistic and optimistic scenarios to Eifler’s existing planning method and interface. One would have been motivated to improve Eifler’s planning method and interface with Wani’s technique because providing different scenarios helps decision makers understand consequences of different decisions. See Wani ¶ 2.
Claims 11 and 18
The additional elements of claims 11 and 18 are the same as the additional elements of claim 4, and therefore, claims 11 and 18 are rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above.
II. Eifler and Paleo teach claims 6, 13, and 20.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eifler as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Bruno Paleo, An Expressive Probabilistic Temporal Logic (arXiv preprint, 2016), available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07453v2 (hereafter “Paleo”).
Claim 6
Eifler teaches the system of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “one or more probability coefficients for each of one or more assumption variants associated with the one or more assumptions” that “each specify an estimated likelihood of occurrence of each of the one or more assumption variants.”
As a reminder, the one or more assumptions in Eifler’s disclosure are generated by defining each assumption as an LTLf formula (Linear Temporal Logic over Finite Traces). Paleo, however, proposes an enhancement to such temporal logic statements by using “syntax (in Section 2) and the semantics (in Section 3) of an expressive probabilistic temporal logic (PTL) for reasoning about actions with uncertain outcomes.” Paleo 2.
“Probabilities appear in the logical language in two ways: firstly, as annotations on the diamond modal operator, in order to indicate how probable the corresponding state transition is; and secondly, through the higher-order probability function
P
, which takes a list of actions and a proposition as arguments and returns the probability that the proposition will hold after the execution of the listed actions.” Paleo 3–4.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Eifler’s LTLf assumptions by adding Paleo’s proposed probability operator and/or higher order probability functions, thereby allowing Eifler’s assumptions to be expressed in terms of probabilities.
One would have been motivated to use Paleo’s technique to introduce the concept of uncertainty into Eifler’s LTLf formulae, as this would provide a way to model outcomes more intuitively and accurately. See Paleo 1 and 15 (arguing “that a combined treatment of probabilities, time and actions is essential for an appropriate logical account of the notion of probability”).
Claims 13 and 20
The additional elements of claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to the additional elements in claim 4, and therefore rejected based on the same findings and rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 The version of Eifler attached to this Office Action has been modified by the Examiner to include line numbers, which are referenced in the rejection.
2 Whether or not the Applicant agrees that this line incorporates the video by reference, the Eifler paper and Eifler Demo together document the “public use” of a single prior art product within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Prosecution Insights