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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-7 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-7 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of generating a model based on a users’ intention by comparing the user input with stored templates and generating a model from the template.
Claim 6 discloses a method, comprising: A model generation support method comprising:
acquiring a model in which an expression is described; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
identifying an intention of the expression described in the model; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
extracting a model template of a different formulation having the same intention, as the identified intention from a database that stores model templates of a plurality of formulations for each intention; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
generating, based on the extracted model template, a model in which an
expression based on the different formulation is described; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and
outputting the generated model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Additional limitations disclose more of the method, including, identifying the intention by comparing the expression described in the model with each of the templates stored in the database, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 2), displaying the generated model separately from the acquired model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 3), receive the user’s choice of model and executing the model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 4), and executing the acquired model and the generated model and output a model selected based on the execution result, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 5).
Each of these claimed limitations involve organizing human activity by following rules or instructions, and employ mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Claims 1, 7 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 2- 6.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-7 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-7 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as, a model generation support system, at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, a terminal device, a screen different from a screen displaying the acquired model, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-7 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 1-2, 4-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being taught by Shear (US
20140280952 A1) “Purposeful Computing.”
Regarding Claim 1, Shear teaches, a model generation support system (A system, method, and computer-readable storage medium configured to facilitate user purpose in a computing architecture, [Abstract]), comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; (Computer-readable storage medium 3200 may be a conventional read/write memory, [ ] or other computer-readable memory device as is known in the art for storing and retrieving data, [4488], and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a model in which an expression is described; (a processor configured to receive an information set, including at least in part a purpose expression set [i.e., model], resulting at least in part from user input; [claim 91]),
identify an intention of the expression described in the model; (a Purpose Experience Resource Contextual Operating System/Environment (PERCos) is [ ] a purpose structured network for resource access and provisioning, for identifying and supporting specific purpose related and optimized resource instances, [0169]), PERCos in part, extends traditional operating system capabilities for resource management by enabling user expression of purpose for selection of, and/or matching to, optimally useful purpose satisfying resources, [apps and services]. PERCos in part employs means and methods for comparing Contextual Purpose Expressions (CPEs) [contextual model] prescribed by users to comparable Stakeholder published CPEs associated with resources, resource portions, and/or resource and/or purpose class published information, [0180].
extract a model template of a different formulation having the same intention as the identified intention from a database that stores model templates of a plurality of formulations for each intention; (PERCos employs Contextual Purpose Expressions as specifications [conceptual model] declared by users to, at least in part, represent their purpose(s) for a given computing activity set. [0209]. PERCos can identify resource store information elements that correspond to CPE and/or related purpose formulation elements for matching and similarity determination processes that may, for example, evaluate and/or identify and/or select and/or prioritize and/or provision candidate resources at least in part as a result of calculating the correspondence and/or other relevance of candidate resource sets available through such information store(s) to user related purpose expressions such as CPEs and purpose statements, as may be supplemented by other purpose related information, [0271]. Coherence Services may invoke similarity and matching methods that utilize the user CPE to identify those resources whose associated Core Purpose expressions are "closest" to
the user CPE. These methods may include identification of other CPEs that may be used by users as adjuncts and/or replacements for their own. These CPEs may also have associated sets of resources, including purpose classes that may be used, in whole or in part to satisfy user purpose. For example a user may select a CPE that has an associated resource comprising a purpose class created by an expert in the purpose Domain of the selected purpose of the user, [2501]. PERCos provides [ ] information access, [ ] divergent arrays of human community/affinity groups, individuals, and information resources through visual representations supported, in part, by specialized database arrangements, presentation apparatus and method embodiments, governance and security attributes, [0967]. Resource arrangements: Including Constructs, such as templates, Frameworks, Foundations, resource Assemblies, knowledge organizations, Informational Patterns and the like. [2238]
generate, based on the extracted model template, a model in which an expression based on the different formulation is described; and
output the generated model, (the development cycle may comprise repeated application of the following phases: [4362] 1. Exploring the documentation of the PERCos Platform Services API to determine what PERCos Platform Services are available and how these services can be invoked. [4363] 2. Writing the code for the purpose class application. This may include the development of PERCos resources such as descriptive purpose expressions, REPutes, governance rules, resource interfaces and the like for the PERCos application being developed. [4364] 3. Building artifacts (e.g. such as versions of the purpose class application) using some combination of traditional development tools and PERCos templates. [4365] 4. Testing the application being developed. [4366] 5. Publishing the application so that it can be used by a community of users, [4367]).
Regarding Claim 2, Shear teaches, the model generation support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to identify the intention of the expression described in the model by comparing the expression described in the model with each of the model templates stored in the database.
PERCos systems support deploying resources in accordance with Contextual Purpose Expressions (CPEs), including for example Core Purpose specifications, augmented when applicable by Master Dimension and/or auxiliary specification information. Such CPEs can enable: [0186] (a) users to, for example, provide Contextual Purpose Expression and other
input to identify, initiate, experience, provision, store, and/or publish computer sessions and session resources that provide the best fit for realizing specific user purpose Outcomes. [0187], This might include supporting user unfolding purpose expressions and system response processes, for comparing Contextual Purpose Expressions (CPEs) prescribed by users to comparable Stakeholder published CPEs associated with resources, resource portions, and/or resource and/or purpose class published information, [0180]. In summary, PERCos environment embodiments may include, for example and without limitation, the following functionality, [3157], 1. Support standardized expressions of purposes and related contexts, to support the recognition of resources optimally matching purpose expressions, such as those provided by users for sessions and/or Stakeholders for resources, [3158],[ ], 8. Extract specifications to build, for example, PERCos templates, Frameworks, Constructs, and the like from operating sessions for use and/or publishing. [3165] 9. Extract contextual purpose-related variables of user-computer interactions to generate enriched Resource usage patterns that may be prospectively used to facilitate more efficient contextual purpose session operations, [3166].
Regarding claim 4, Shear teaches, the model generation support system according to claim 1, further comprising wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive selection of any model from the acquired model and the generated model by an operation by a user; execute the selected model, (PERCos [ ] enabling user expression of purpose for selection of, and/or matching to, optimally useful purpose satisfying resources. PERCos in part employs means and methods for comparing Contextual Purpose Expressions (CPEs) prescribed by users to comparable Stakeholder published CPEs associated with resources, resource portions, and/or resource and/or purpose class published information, [0180]. The development cycle may comprise repeated application of the following phases: [4362] 1. Exploring the documentation of the PERCos Platform Services API to determine what PERCos Platform Services are available and how these services can be invoked. [4363] 2. Writing the code for the purpose class application. This may include the development of PERCos resources such as descriptive purpose expressions, REPutes, governance rules, resource interfaces and the like for the PERCos application being developed. [4364] 3. Building artifacts (e.g. such as versions of the purpose class application) using some combination of traditional development tools and PERCos templates. [4365] 4. Testing the application being developed. [4366] 5. Publishing the application so that it can be used by a community of users, [4367]).
Regarding claim 5, Shear teaches, the model generation support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: execute each of the acquired model and the generated model; output a model selected from the acquired model and the generated model based on an execution result, (To provide users with evaluative and purpose-directed resource identification, understanding, prioritization, and utilization in the face of boundless varieties and opportunities of Big Resources, PERCos provides PERCos cosmos, which is an at least in part administered space comprising a set of resource objects (and may further include resource portions) and related PERCos information
management systems. PERCos cosmos may be further organized according to a set of purpose
characterizing, simplification structures, called Dimensions and any associated Facets. Each
Dimension and Facet comprises a set of values, which in some cases, may be ordered, [0361]. PERCos embodiments Dimensions and Facets can be used to characterize resources according to their Dimensional values, [ ]; these Dimensions may be complimented by other resource characteristics, such as Role, efficiency, location, budget, time, and other metrics, [0364], Facets support PERCos approximation matching where the standardized and approximating nature of Facets used in user prescriptive purpose expressions can be matched against resource descriptive purpose expressions to identify one or more purpose classes who have member
resources supported by information structures which may be subject to further PERCos purpose
assessment and/or selection processes, [0365]).
Claim 6-7 recite substantially similar limitations as claims 1-2, 4-5, therefore claims 6-7 are rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claims 1-2, 4-5. In these claims, the absence of a system comprising one or more processors, memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art. Shear teaches PERCos environment 2000 comprises a processor 3100, memory 2070, storage medium 3200, and network interface 2060, [4481], and it is understood by those familiar with the art that the system described herein may be
implemented in hardware, firmware, or software encoded on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, [4479].
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Shear (US 20140280952
A1) “Purposeful Computing.”
Regarding claim 3, Shear teaches, the model generation support system according to claim 1, additionally teaching, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
display, in a case where the acquired model is being displayed on a terminal device, the generated model on a screen different from a screen displaying the acquired model, (In some PERCos embodiments, a publishing or synergizing set specification arrangement may be presented in a format that represents, for example, separate simultaneously displayed, vertical resource type prioritized (in order) characteristic instance choice lists. Such lists may be prioritized by resource instances being processed through Coherence Services evaluation, such as similarity matching against user and/or related purpose expression sets and/or filtering and/or evaluation based upon Repute Cred assertions and/or EF effective facts and/or other information such as group administrator governance information, [0299]).
The use of a screen different from a screen displaying the acquired model is a design choice with no benefit to the utility of the invention. Regardless, Shear teaches that the PERCos environment 2000 comprises a processor 3100, memory 2070, storage medium 3200, and network interface 2060. PERCos environment 2000 may also contain one or more of the
following: display 2010, manual input 2020, microphone 2030, data input port 2040, and speaker 2050, [4481], and display 2010 may be a visual display such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor, a liquid crystal display (LCD) screen, plasma display, projector, light emitting diode (LED) display, organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, touch-sensitive screen, or other monitors as are known in the art for visually displaying images, graphics and/or text to a user, [4484]. It would be a design choice to include a separate display for each model as opposed to a format that represents, for example, separate simultaneously displayed, vertical resource type prioritized (in order) characteristic instance choice lists, and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts of an invention, in this case choosing simultaneous display on a different display screen, Shear [0299], (MPEP 2144.04 I, 2144.04 VI (C)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights