Requirement for Information under 37 CFR § 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
The instant application includes an equation in claim 5. Information is requested regarding said equation. Is the claimed equation based upon the work of others, or simply the product of the Applicant’s invention?
The equation of claim 5 is directed toward functions for determining a confidence level (T). Although the broader concept of determining the confidence level is old and well known in the art, claim 5 of the instant application discloses a specific manner of doing this by using the expertise level and the conflict of interest level. The information requested by the Examiner is required in order to complete the background description in the disclosure by documenting methods of determining a sample size known by those of ordinary skill in the art.
The information is required to document the level of skill and knowledge in the art of sample size planning.
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication, text, or relevant material, that any of the applicants relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to developing the equations of claim 5. For each document provided, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, therequirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide theparticular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subjectmatter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant's disclosure.
The fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action, which is three (3) months.
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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on May 27, 2025.
Currently claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 13 are independent.
Priority
Applicant claims the priority of a Foreign Patent application No. JP 2022-198557, filed on December 13, 2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2025 appears to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c), as being of improper dependent form. Claim 13 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, but “processing method according to claim 1” is improper because claiming a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is independently from a method of claim 1. Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim in independent form.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 12 recites a system comprising “a target information obtainer”, “an evaluator information obtainer”, “a level determiner”, and “a confidence level deriver”, which are directed the means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, (f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, see MPEP 2181 (I)(A).
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Here, even though “means for” has not been explicitly recited, claim limitations “a target information obtainer”, “an evaluator information obtainer”, “a level determiner”, and “a confidence level deriver” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder with functional language “a target information obtainer” that obtains evaluation target information, “an evaluator information obtainer” that obtains evaluator information, “a level determiner” that determines at least one of a field expertise level on a conflict of interest level, and “a confidence level deriver” that derives the confidence level of the evaluation based on the at least one of the field expertise level. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim 12 is 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, the claim includes language that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), or sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to (1) disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function and/or (2) clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Here, the claims recite the following limitations: 1) “a target information obtainer that obtains evaluation target information” is directed to specialized function for obtaining evaluation target information, and thus the function is indefinite. 2) “an evaluator information obtainer that obtains evaluator information” is directed to specialized function for obtaining evaluator information, and thus the function is indefinite. 3) “a level determiner that determines at least one of a field expertise level on a conflict of interest level” is directed to specialized function for determining at least one of a field expertise level on a conflict of interest level, and thus the function is indefinite. 4) “a confidence level deriver that derives the confidence level of the evaluation based on the at least one of the field expertise level” is directed to specialized functions for deriving the confidence level of the evaluation…, and thus the functions are indefinite..
For each of the indefinite function as described above, Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function 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 so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to 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 § 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method for deriving a confidence level of an evaluation without tied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claims 1-11 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution. Claim 12 is directed to a system comprising limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, without reciting sufficient structure in the claims to achieve the functions, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed to a system comprising software per se, which is not fall within the four statutory categories. However, claim 12 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution.. Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recorded computer program, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
With respect to claims 1-11, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
With respect to claim 12, as understood, claim 12 recites as a system without positive recitation of a physical structure in the body for performing the steps is considered to be software per se and therefore is not fall within any of the four statutory categories. If Applicant desired to claim an apparatus (system) claim, it must be included at least one identified hardware (e.g., a processor, memory) in the body of the claim.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 1 recites limitations of “obtaining evaluation target information, obtaining evaluator information, determining, based on the evaluation target information and the evaluator information, at least one of a field expertise level or a conflict of interest level of the evaluator, and deriving the confidence level of the evaluation based on the at least one of the field expertise level or the conflict of interest level”; dependent claims 2-11 further narrowing the characteristics of the limitations in claim 1 include “weighting each of the field expertise level and the conflict of interest level, and determining adoption or non-adoption of an evaluation performed on the evaluation target by a given evaluator, correcting an evaluation performed on the evaluation target by a given evaluator”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually obtaining the information, determining at least one of a field expertise level based on the known information, and deriving the confidence level of the evaluation”, which can be performed in the mind. Thus, the claims fall within the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
Further, claim 5 recites a mathematical equation for deriving the confidence level, is directed to “mathematical concepts— mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations,” which constitute a judicial exception under . 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, the claims recite one or more abstract ideas, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites no additional element for performing the steps. Even if claim 1 recites an addition element of “a processor” for performing the steps. The Specification describes that “the method may be implemented by a computer that includes a processor, memory, input/output circuit, etc.,…the elements included in the information processing system and the like may be configured as a dedicated hardware product, a general-purpose hardware product that executes the above described program. The general-purpose hardware product may include a memory on which a program is recorded a general-purpose processor that executes by reading the program from the memory, etc. Here, the memory may be a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or the like, and the general-purpose processor may be the central processing unit (CPU) or the like.” (See ¶ 121-123). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components, these additional elements (processor, memory) are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network. The Federal Courts held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.”). However, even if the processor is recited, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, there is no additional element in the claim that can integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites no additional element for performing the steps. Even if claim 1 recites an addition element of “a processor” for performing the steps. The Specification describes that “the method may be implemented by a computer that includes a processor, memory, input/output circuit, etc.,…the elements included in the information processing system and the like may be configured as a dedicated hardware product, a general-purpose hardware product that executes the above described program. The general-purpose hardware product may include a memory on which a program is recorded a general-purpose processor that executes by reading the program from the memory, etc. Here, the memory may be a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or the like, and the general-purpose processor may be the central processing unit (CPU) or the like.” (See ¶ 121-123). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components, these additional elements (processor, memory) are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, even if the claim recites a processor and a memory, at best, they may perform the generic computer functions including obtaining (receiving) the evaluation target information and evaluator information over a network, storing the information in the memory. However, using a generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-11 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 12 and 13 parallel claim 1—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al., (JP 2018045498, hereinafter: Kinoshita), and in view of Kooznetsoff et al., (US 2021/0342408, hereinafter: Kooznetsoff).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita discloses an information processing method of deriving a confidence level of an evaluation that is to be performed or has been performed on an evaluation target by an evaluator, the information processing method comprising:
obtaining evaluation target information containing information about the evaluation target (see pg. 2, ¶ 2-6; pg. 4, ¶ 5-7; pg. 7, ¶ 3-4);
obtaining evaluator information containing information about the evaluator (see pg. 6, ¶ 2-5;pg. 8, ¶ 9);
determining, based on the evaluation target information and the evaluator information, at least one of a field expertise level or a conflict of interest level of the evaluator on the evaluation target (see pg. 2, ¶ 6; pg. 4, ¶ 3; pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 2-3).
Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kooznetsoff in an analogous art for processing evaluation value discloses
deriving the confidence level of the evaluation based on the at least one of the field expertise level or the conflict of interest level which have been determined in the determining (see ¶ 38, ¶ 58, ¶ 70-71, ¶ 186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita to include teaching of Kooznetsoff in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Kinoshita discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
in the determining, the at least one of the field expertise level or the conflict of interest level of the evaluator is determined for each of a plurality of evaluation targets, the plurality of evaluation targets each being the evaluation target (see pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 3-6).
Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kooznetsoff discloses
in the deriving, the confidence level is derived for each of the plurality of evaluation targets (see ¶ 27, ¶ 38, ¶ 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita to include teaching of Kooznetsoff in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Kinoshita discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
in the determining, each of the field expertise level and the conflict of interest level of the evaluator is determined based on the evaluation target information and the evaluator information (see pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 3-6).
Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kooznetsoff discloses
in the deriving, the confidence level is derived based on the field expertise level and the conflict of interest level (see ¶ 58, ¶ 70-73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita to include teaching of Kooznetsoff in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kooznetsoff discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
in the deriving, the confidence level is derived by weighting each of the field expertise level and the conflict of interest level (see ¶ 58, ¶ 70-73, ¶ 160, ¶ 186). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita to include teaching of Kooznetsoff in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Kinoshita and Wentz do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kooznetsoff discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
in the deriving, the confidence level is derived based on Equation 1 that is T = αS - βI, where T denotes the confidence level, S denotes the field expertise level, I denotes the conflict of interest level, α denotes a coefficient greater than or equal to 0, and β denotes a coefficient greater than or equal to 0 (see ¶ 157-160, ¶ 177).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita to include teaching of Kooznetsoff in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Kinoshita discloses the information processing method according to claim 1,
wherein the evaluation target is a theme of research and development on which a company that the evaluator belongs to invests for a future (see col. 2, ¶ 4-6; pg. 16, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 7, Kinoshita discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
in the determining, the field expertise level is determined based on a relationship between a search expression to search for literature about the evaluation target and literature whose inventor or author is the evaluator (see pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 4, ¶ 3; pg. 11, ¶ 8; pg. 13, ¶ 8).
Regarding claim 8, Kinoshita discloses the information processing method according to claim 7, wherein
the literature is at least one of patent literature (see pg. 1) or a paper.
Regarding claim 10, Kinoshita discloses an accepting unit accepts information on the result screen (see pg. 11, ¶ 2).
Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kooznetsoff discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining adoption or non-adoption of an evaluation performed on the evaluation target by a given evaluator (see ¶ 71, ¶ 180), wherein
in the determining of adoption or non-adoption of the evaluation, adoption of the evaluation performed on the evaluation target by the given evaluator is determined when the confidence level is greater than a predetermined threshold (see ¶ 71, ¶ 85, ¶ 107, ¶ 187).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita to include teaching of Kooznetsoff in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Kinoshita discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
correcting an evaluation performed on the evaluation target by a given evaluator (see pg. 7, ¶ 7; pg. 11, ¶ 8).
Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kooznetsoff discloses wherein
in the correcting, the evaluation is corrected by weighting, using the confidence level, the evaluation performed on the evaluation target by the given evaluator (see ¶ 3, ¶ 86, ¶ 107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita to include teaching of Kooznetsoff in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Kinoshita discloses an information processing system that derives a confidence level of an evaluation that is to be performed or has been performed on an evaluation target by an evaluator, the information processing system comprising:
a target information obtainer that obtains evaluation target information containing information about the evaluation target (see pg. 2, ¶ 2-6; pg. 4, ¶ 5-7; pg. 7, ¶ 3-4);
an evaluator information obtainer that obtains evaluator information containing information about the evaluator (see pg. 6, ¶ 2-5;pg. 8, ¶ 9);
a level determiner that determines, based on the evaluation target information and the evaluator information, at least one of a field expertise level or a conflict of interest level of the evaluator on the evaluation target (see pg. 2, ¶ 6; pg. 4, ¶ 3; pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 2-3).
Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kooznetsoff in an analogous art for processing evaluation value discloses
a confidence level deriver that derives the confidence level of the evaluation based on the at least one of the field expertise level or the conflict of interest level which have been determined by the level determiner (see ¶ 38, ¶ 58, ¶ 70-71, ¶ 186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita to include teaching of Kooznetsoff in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Kinoshita and in view of Kooznetsoff discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for use in a computer, the recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing the computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita and in view of Kooznetsoff as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Tu et al., (CN 111898098, hereinafter: Tu).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 9, Kinoshita and Kooznetsoff do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tu in an analogous art correlating service value discloses the information processing method according to claim 6, wherein
in the determining, the conflict of interest level is determined based on a relationship between a research and development organization that has brought up the evaluation target and each of past and present organizational affiliations of the evaluator (see Abstract; pg. 4, Step 5; pg. 5, ¶ 3; pg. 7, Step 6, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinoshita and in view of Kooznetsoff to include teaching of Tu in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mackenzie et al., (WO 2020/170020) discloses a method for processing each evaluator data object and evaluation task data object to generate a particular credential score for the particular evaluator data object with respect to the evaluation task data object.
Wentz et al., (US 2019/0312734) discloses a system for authenticating evaluation of a cryptographic evaluator.
Kim et al., (US 2019/0147062) discloses a method for using crowd sourcing to score online content at relates to relief state.
Shen et al., “An Evaluation Method of Confidence Level Based on Hausdorff Distance”, Northwest Institute of Nuclear Technology, Shanxi, China. 2022 IEEE 10th Asia-Pacific Conference on Antennas and Propagation, 2022 IEEE.
Gao et al., “Confidence Based Quality Evaluation for Total Manufacturing Process Using Comprehensive Process Capability”. Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, China. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE IEEM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights