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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The pending claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
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 reception unit that receives a user idea that is a current user's idea;
an idea candidate database in which idea candidates that are existing ideas are accumulated;
a selection unit that selects, from among the idea candidates accumulated in the idea candidate database, the idea candidate associated with the user idea as a first idea candidate ();
a classification transfer unit that generates a second idea candidate in which a classification of the first idea candidate selected by the selection unit is converted into a classification of the user idea; and
a presentation unit that presents the user idea, the first idea candidate, and the second idea candidate to a user in association with each other” in claim 1.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “
a reception unit that receives a user idea that is a current user's idea;
an idea candidate database in which idea candidates that are existing ideas are accumulated;
a selection unit that selects, from among the idea candidates accumulated in the idea candidate database, the idea candidate associated with the user idea as a first idea candidate ();
a classification transfer unit that generates a second idea candidate in which a classification of the first idea candidate selected by the selection unit is converted into a classification of the user idea; and
a presentation unit that presents the user idea, the first idea candidate, and the second idea candidate to a user in association with each other
” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The Specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordination skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG.
Regarding to claim 6,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 6 recites: An idea generation support method, the method comprising:
“a first step of receiving a user idea that is a current user's idea”. This element reads on a person provides an idea which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“a second step of selecting, from among idea candidates accumulated in an idea candidate database in which the idea candidates that are existing ideas are accumulated, the idea candidate associated with the user idea as a first idea candidate”. This element reads on a person selects an idea candidate associated with the user idea which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“a third step of generating a second idea candidate in which a classification of the selected first idea candidate is converted into a classification of the user idea”. This element reads on a person generates a second idea candidate in which a classification of the selected first idea candidate is converted into a classification of the user idea which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“a fourth step of presenting the user idea, the first idea candidate, and the second idea candidate to a user in association with each other”. This element reads on a person presents the user idea, the first idea candidate, and the second idea candidate to a user in association with each other which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
Overall, the limitations directed to provides idea candidates and the various mental process limitations in the context of this claim encompasses limitations that are not only considered to be directed to limitations that could be practically performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) aided by the use of pen and paper. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of “an idea generation support system”
Regarding the idea generation support system,
The processor of a computer system for generating and storing in all steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (generating and storing). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element “an idea generation support system” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and does not provide any improvement in computer technology (see MPEP2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: In Step 2B, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting 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 “an idea generation support system” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results.
Accordingly, this additional element(s), taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “
the idea generation support system has a conversion model database that stores one or more conversion models,
in the idea candidate database, data of each of the idea candidates includes classification information indicating a classification of the idea candidate, and
in the third step, the idea generation support system estimates the classification of the user idea, and generates the second idea candidate in which the classification of the first idea candidate is converted into the classification of the user idea by using the corresponding conversion model from among the conversion models stored in the conversion model database, based on the estimated classification of the user idea and the classification of the first idea candidate" That is, the claim recites
the idea generation support system has a conversion model database that stores one or more conversion models,
in the idea candidate database, data of each of the idea candidates includes classification information indicating a classification of the idea candidate, and
in the third step, the idea generation support system estimates the classification of the user idea, and generates the second idea candidate in which the classification of the first idea candidate is converted into the classification of the user idea by using the corresponding conversion model from among the conversion models stored in the conversion model database, based on the estimated classification of the user idea and the classification of the first idea candidate. The above-noted limitation of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 6-7, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “
a content of each of the idea candidates is expressed by a text or a sentence, and
the conversion model converts the classification of the first idea candidate into the classification of the user idea by replacing a word with a word in the classification of the user idea while maintaining syntax of a text or a sentence of the first idea candidate" That is, the claim recites
a content of each of the idea candidates is expressed by a text or a sentence, and
the conversion model converts the classification of the first idea candidate into the classification of the user idea by replacing a word with a word in the classification of the user idea while maintaining syntax of a text or a sentence of the first idea candidate. The above-noted limitation of claim 8, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 9 is dependent on claims 6-7, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “the conversion model is a conversion model trained using training data for converting an idea candidate in the same classification as the first idea candidate into the same classification as the user idea" That is, the claim recites the conversion model is a conversion model trained using training data for converting an idea candidate in the same classification as the first idea candidate into the same classification as the user idea. The above-noted limitation of claim 9, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 6, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites “
a content of each of the idea candidates is expressed by a text or a sentence, and
in the third step, the idea generation support system generates the second idea candidate in which the classification of the first idea candidate is converted into the classification of the user idea by using a conversion model trained with a sentence, as training data, obtained by combining a first text or sentence expressing a content of the first idea candidate, a second text or sentence in which a word of the first idea candidate is replaced with a word of the user idea, and a different third text or sentence belonging to the same classification as the idea candidate" That is, the claim recites
a content of each of the idea candidates is expressed by a text or a sentence, and
in the third step, the idea generation support system generates the second idea candidate in which the classification of the first idea candidate is converted into the classification of the user idea by using a conversion model trained with a sentence, as training data, obtained by combining a first text or sentence expressing a content of the first idea candidate, a second text or sentence in which a word of the first idea candidate is replaced with a word of the user idea, and a different third text or sentence belonging to the same classification as the idea candidate. The above-noted limitation of claim 10, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claims 6-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (KR 20230007023 A, hereinafter “KIM”) in view of Kyoya et al (U.S. 20030212585 A1 hereinafter, “Kyoya”).
9. With respect to claim 1,
KIM discloses
An idea generation support system that presents information supporting generation of a new idea, the system comprising:
a reception unit that receives a user idea (e.g. user can test and create various ideas) that is a current user's idea;
an idea candidate database in which idea candidates (e.g. candidate ideas) that are existing ideas are accumulated (e.g. extract texts of technical problems and solutions, which are essential items for Ideation, from scientific and technical literature, build a characteristic database based on the extracted text);
a selection unit that selects, from among the idea candidates accumulated in the idea candidate database, the idea candidate associated with the user idea as a first idea candidate (e.g. candidate solutions - from the constructed characteristic database, users can It is possible to automatically extract science and technology literature that contains the most similar technical problem to the target problem technology at hand. Furthermore, the system and method according to an embodiment of the present invention relates to an intelligent idea generation system that automatically presents an optimal idea among candidate solutions suggested in the extracted literature. In other words, if solutions with high applicability are automatically selected as candidate ideas among solutions);
a classification transfer unit that generates a second idea candidate into a classification of the user idea (KIM page 9 e.g. The display unit DP may display measurement results by applying different colors and figures to the similarity measurement results measured by the first similarity measurement unit 15a and the second similarity measurement unit 15b. In addition, it can be displayed by classifying according to the type of technical literature. For example, the degree of similarity measured from patent documents and the degree of similarity of non-patent documents may be displayed differently); and
a presentation unit that presents the user idea, the first idea candidate, and the second idea candidate to a user in association with (e.g. similarity) each other (e.g. candidate solutions - from the constructed characteristic database, users can It is possible to automatically extract science and technology literature that contains the most similar technical problem to the target problem technology at hand. Furthermore, the system and method according to an embodiment of the present invention relates to an intelligent idea generation system that automatically presents an optimal idea among candidate solutions suggested in the extracted literature. In other words, if solutions with high applicability are automatically selected as candidate ideas among solutions) (KIM abstract, pages 10-13 e.g. [abstract] The present invention discloses an idea generation system and method. The idea generation system includes an input unit, a first database, a second database, an embedding unit, a similarity measurement unit, a first display unit, a mapping unit, a second display unit, a simulation unit, a third display unit, and the like. According to the selection of a user, the simulation is performed such as editing, combining, replacing, or deleting all or part of characteristic data in a specific similarity range, so as to support new idea generation. [pages 10-13] 9 is a diagram illustrating an operation of a simulation unit according to an embodiment. For example, in an embodiment of the present invention, the simulation unit uses an interface as a means of simulating the candidate 'solutions' output from the mapping unit 17 so that the user can test and create various ideas, or can include The interface may provide UI (User Interface) or UX (User Experience) so that the idea simulation can be experienced. .... In addition, the interface IF may have various editing functions such as cut, crop, enlarge, and copy. In this way, by providing a simulation function that verifies and demonstrates new ideas while editing, manipulating, and transforming drawings or images of candidate ideas, the user can create new ideas intuitively and efficiently. …. By utilizing these, it is possible to freely perform combinations, substitutions, deletions of drawings and images, and intuitively verify the feasibility or feasibility of ideas. In this way, the simulation unit 19 provides a user experience interface (UX) through which the user can explore or test new ideas while selectively separating, combining, or deleting some images in the drawing according to the user's needs, and automating the simulation. …. For example, if three candidate solutions (S1, S2, S3) are presented for a specific target problem description, the result of combining, deleting, or replacing all or some components of these candidate solutions UX can be provided to experience and verify new ideas while simulating. …. By displaying on the screen, the suitability of the new idea can be confirmed. Even in the case of substitution, it can be simulated by replacing some components of S1 with some components of S2. Accordingly, the user may obtain a new idea by selecting the most appropriate idea among the above simulation results, or may obtain another new idea by adding another user's own idea. Utilizing the simulation interface (UI/UX) in this way can effectively stimulate the user's inspiration for new ideas. …. Unlike existing systems, it is a user-oriented idea creation system that considers intuition and user convenience as much as possible based on data. 10 is a diagram illustrating various application examples of an intelligent idea creation system according to an embodiment. Referring further to FIG. 10 , when a technical field is fixed to a specific technical field and solutions are identified based on the target problem description, it is possible to support creation of a new solution for the target problem description. The system of the present invention can be used for the purpose of providing ideas for Trouble Shooting that makes a breakthrough in solving the target problem technology that the researcher is contemplating in the current R&D task. Depending on the use case, if the field of use is not limited to a specific field and measured by expanding the field of use to various fields, ideas from different fields can also be utilized. …. As a way to overcome this, using the system of the present invention can derive a more systematic and fundamental solution. First, a defective phenomenon is entered as a target problem description, and the closest science and technology literature (patent literature and non-patent literature) is found by the similarity measuring unit 15, and the quality is based on the solution idea presented in this literature. Candidate ideas for improvement can be found. The field engineer may select an idea with high feasibility as an optimal idea or add additional ideas through various simulations targeting the candidate ideas. …. 11 is a flowchart of an intelligent idea generation method according to an embodiment. Referring to FIG. 11, the idea generation method according to the embodiment includes a step of converting target problem description data to be solved by a user into reference vector values (S2050), first characteristic data and second characteristic data extracted from a first document. Converting data included in the configured first database into a first vector value and/or converting data included in a second database composed of third and fourth characteristic data extracted from a second document into a second vector value A conversion step (S2100) is included. … The system and method of the present invention extract texts of technical problems and solutions, which are essential items for Ideation, from scientific and technical literature, build a characteristic database based on the extracted text, and from the constructed characteristic database, users can It is possible to automatically extract science and technology literature that contains the most similar technical problem to the target problem technology at hand. Furthermore, the system and method according to an embodiment of the present invention relates to an intelligent idea generation system that automatically presents an optimal idea among candidate solutions suggested in the extracted literature. In other words, if solutions with high applicability are automatically selected as candidate ideas among solutions, the user uses the simulation function to edit and process drawings or images of these candidate ideas in various ways according to the user's needs. Thus, new ideas can be created much more easily and effectively than before.).
Although KIM substantially teaches the claimed invention, KIM does not explicitly indicate a classification transfer unit that generates a second idea candidate in which a classification of the first idea candidate selected by the selection unit is converted into a classification of the user idea.
Kyoya teaches the limitations by stating a classification transfer unit that generates a second idea candidate in which a classification of the first idea candidate selected by the selection unit is converted into a classification of the user idea (Kyoya [0021] – [0023] e.g. [0021] The term "result of idea drawing and classification" may be defined as results containing, such as, ideas given through an idea drawing procedure and attribute information added to each idea, and also results containing ideas given through any information processing to classify ideas. This term may be widely interpreted, as including not only final results given on the completion of idea drawing and classification procedures but also a result given at each stage of the idea drawing and classification procedures. [0022] A first aspect of the present invention is a computer-aided idea-drawing support method comprising: supporting drawing different levels of ideas from at least one idea at a level of source of drawing on a drawing window displaying the idea; supporting classification of the ideas into groups on a classification window displaying the drawn ideas, contents-view windows for displaying a list of elements per group with element character strings each expressing one of the elements constituting each group being openable on the classification window; and storing at least one result of the idea drawing and classification. [0023] A second aspect of the present invention is a computer-readable program product for supporting idea drawing comprising: a function of supporting drawing different levels of ideas from at least one idea at a level of source of drawing on a drawing window displaying the idea; a function of supporting classification of the ideas into groups on a classification window displaying the drawn ideas, contents-view windows for displaying a list of elements per group with element character strings each expressing one of the elements constituting each group being openable on the classification window; and a function of storing at least one result of the idea drawing and classification.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of KIM and Kyoya, to provide a computer-aided idea-drawing support method and a program product for supporting idea drawing that achieve efficient VOC-based idea drawing and classification (Kyoya [0011]).
10. With respect to claim 2,
Kyoya further discloses
wherein, in the idea candidate database, data of each of the idea candidates includes classification information indicating a classification of the idea candidate, and
the classification transfer unit estimates the classification of the user idea, and generates the second idea candidate in which the classification of the first idea candidate is converted into the classification of the user idea by using the corresponding conversion model from among the conversion models stored in the conversion model database, based on the estimated classification of the user idea and the classification of the first idea candidate (Kyoya [0021] – [0023] e.g. [0021] The term "result of idea drawing and classification" may be defined as results containing, such as, ideas given through an idea drawing procedure and attribute information added to each idea, and also results containing ideas given through any information processing to classify ideas. This term may be widely interpreted, as including not only final results given on the completion of idea drawing and classification procedures but also a result given at each stage of the idea drawing and classification procedures. [0022] A first aspect of the present invention is a computer-aided idea-drawing support method comprising: supporting drawing different levels of ideas from at least one idea at a level of source of drawing on a drawing window displaying the idea; supporting classification of the ideas into groups on a classification window displaying the drawn ideas, contents-view windows for displaying a list of elements per group with element character strings each expressing one of the elements constituting each group being openable on the classification window; and storing at least one result of the idea drawing and classification. [0023] A second aspect of the present invention is a computer-readable program product for supporting idea drawing comprising: a function of supporting drawing different levels of ideas from at least one idea at a level of source of drawing on a drawing window displaying the idea; a function of supporting classification of the ideas into groups on a classification window displaying the drawn ideas, contents-view windows for displaying a list of elements per group with element character strings each expressing one of the elements constituting each group being openable on the classification window; and a function of storing at least one result of the idea drawing and classification.).
11. With respect to claim 3,
KIM further discloses
a content of each of the idea candidates is expressed by a text or a sentence (KIM pages 3, 7-8 e.g. sentence), and
the conversion model converts the classification of the first idea candidate into the classification of the user idea by replacing a word with a word in the classification of the user idea while maintaining syntax of a text or a sentence of the first idea candidate (KIM abstract, pages 10-12, 15-16 e.g. replacing).
12. With respect to claim 4,
Kyoya further discloses wherein the conversion model is a conversion model trained using training data (Kyoya [0015], [0048], [0136], [0269], [0301] e.g. sentence; referring to claim 5) for converting an idea candidate in the same classification as the first idea candidate into the same classification as the user idea (Kyoya [0021] – [0023] e.g. [0021] The term "result of idea drawing and classification" may be defined as results containing, such as, ideas given through an idea drawing procedure and attribute information added to each idea, and also results containing ideas given through any information processing to classify ideas. This term may be widely interpreted, as including not only final results given on the completion of idea drawing and classification procedures but also a result given at each stage of the idea drawing and classification procedures. [0022] A first aspect of the present invention is a computer-aided idea-drawing support method comprising: supporting drawing different levels of ideas from at least one idea at a level of source of drawing on a drawing window displaying the idea; supporting classification of the ideas into groups on a classification window displaying the drawn ideas, contents-view windows for displaying a list of elements per group with element character strings each expressing one of the elements constituting each group being openable on the classification window; and storing at least one result of the idea drawing and classification. [0023] A second aspect of the present invention is a computer-readable program product for supporting idea drawing comprising: a function of supporting drawing different levels of ideas from at least one idea at a level of source of drawing on a drawing window displaying the idea; a function of supporting classification of the ideas into groups on a classification window displaying the drawn ideas, contents-view windows for displaying a list of elements per group with element character strings each expressing one of the elements constituting each group being openable on the classification window; and a function of storing at least one result of the idea drawing and classification.).
13. With respect to claim 5,
KIM further discloses
a content of each of the idea candidates is expressed by a text or a sentence (KIM pages 3, 7-8 e.g. sentence),
and
the classification transfer unit generates the second idea candidate in which the classification of the first idea candidate is converted into the classification of the user idea by using a conversion model trained with a sentence (KIM pages 3, 7-8 e.g. sentence), as training data, obtained by combining a first text or sentence expressing a content of the first idea candidate, a second text or sentence in which a word of the first idea candidate is replaced with a word of the user idea (KIM abstract, pages 10-12, 15-16 e.g. replacing), and a different third text or sentence belonging to the same classification as the idea candidate.
14. Claims 6-10 are same as claims 1-5 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
16. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SyLing Yen whose telephone number is 571-270-1306. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SYLING YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights