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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 have been examined in this Non-Final. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2025, and 01/09/2025 were filed after the mailing date. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Application 19/2257,562 filed 06/04/2025 claims priority to foreign application JP2024-100032 filed 06/20/2024.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a signal per se.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir., 2007). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a program or computer readable medium (or machine readable medium) typically covers transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent.
Applicant's specification fails to describe the program. A program or computer-readable media may include computer-readable storage media, which corresponds to a tangible medium such as data storage media, or communication media including any medium that facilitates transfer of a computer program from one place to another, e.g., according to a communication protocol. In this manner, computer-readable media generally may correspond to (1) tangible computer-readable storage media which is non-transitory or (2) a communication medium such as a signal or carrier wave. The specification does not exclude transitory signals for computer-readable media. Thus, Examiner asserts that a program as claimed does not explicitly exclude transitory signals according to the specification. Furthermore, even if the applicant intends for the program to be interpreted as "storage" or "tangible," merely adding the terms "storage" or "physical" or "tangible" would not suffice since signals are considered to be physical or tangible. Thus, claim 12 does not exclude transitory signals and is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. To advance prosecution, Claim 12 is treated as falling under one of the statutory categories. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and computing device for determining a distribution of intellectual property data. For Claims 1, 11, and 12 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
[…] acquire predetermined acquisition information from intellectual property data;
[…] calculate, for each applicant, an intellectual property evaluation value in each technology classification in a predetermined period based on the acquisition information;
[…] generate a distribution based on the intellectual property evaluation value calculated […]; and
[…] place the distribution.
The above limitations is analyzing data, such as data from patent documents and other forms of IP related disclosures is a form of market analysis, which is a concept that is a fundamental economic practice. Many companies are known to perform some kind of competitor analysis to identify any competitors in different markets and for various product lines. Analyzing IP information to generate a distribution between data sets in different technology classifications, is considered to represent a certain method of organizing human activities. A human being can perform the claimed steps that defines the abstract idea. The Examiner additionally notes that the claimed steps of acquiring information from intellectual property data, calculating an evaluation value in each technology classification during a predetermined period based on the acquired information, generating a distribution based on the evaluation value, and graphing the distribution, can all be performed by people manually performing the claimed steps. For these reasons the claims are found to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities that is reciting a fundamental economic practice of performing market analysis.
Alternatively, the claim as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. The Examiner notes that “Mathematical Concepts” includes a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a numerical formula or equation it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. Claim 1 includes calculating an evaluation value in each technology classification in a predetermined period based on the acquisition information, and determining the distribution. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes. Accordingly, Claims 1, 11 and 12 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 12 recites the additional elements of an acquisition unit (Claims 1), a calculation unit (Claims 1), a distribution generation unit (Claims 1), a distribution placement unit (Claim 1), and a computer (Claim 12), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount 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 of an acquisition unit (Claims 1), a calculation unit (Claims 1), a distribution generation unit (Claims 1), a distribution placement unit (Claim 1), and a computer (Claim 12), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 11, and 12 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-10 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) acquiring an evaluation value in each technology classification in a predetermined period as the acquisition information. Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) the evaluation value including at least one of a number of applications, a number of published applications, a number of patents, a number of citations, a number of cited times, and a total of their weighted values. Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) using first acquisition information in a predetermined period and second acquisition information in a period different from the predetermined period of the first acquisition information in the acquisition information, a difference of the evaluation value in each technology classification in the second acquisition information with respect to the evaluation value in the technology classification in the first acquisition information as the intellectual property evaluation value and calculates a group of the intellectual property evaluation values as difference information. Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) generating a normal distribution as the distribution. Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) generating a normal distribution based on the difference information, acquiring an expected value and a standard deviation, and holding the normal distribution, the expected value, and the standard deviation. Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) placing the normal distribution on coordinate axes in three dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution, a base axis as at least one of an expected value of the normal distribution, a standard deviation of the normal distribution, and a total of their weighted values, and a probability density axis as a probability density of the normal distribution. Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) placing the normal distribution on coordinate axes in two dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution and a base axis as at least one of an expected value of the normal distribution, a standard deviation of the normal distribution, and a total of their weighted values. Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) placing the normal distribution on coordinate axes in three dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution, a probability density axis as a probability density of the normal distribution, and a time axis. Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) placing the normal distribution on coordinate axes in two dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution and a time axis.
Claims 2, and 4-10 include the additional elements of an acquisition unit, calculation unit, distribution generation unit, and the distribution placement unit. The acquisition unit, calculation unit, distribution generation unit, and the distribution placement unit are analyzed in the same manner as the acquisition unit, calculation unit, distribution generation unit, and the distribution placement unit in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Therefore claims 2-10 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masuyama (US20100114587A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Masuyama discloses, An information processing device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire predetermined acquisition information from intellectual property data; "Evaluation device of an embodiment of the present invention comprises: means for acquiring patent data of a plurality of patents belonging to a predetermined technical field and patent attribution information of each of the patent data from a patent database; means for classifying the acquired patent data into groups for each specified period" (Masuyama Par. 0011-0013).
a calculation unit configured to calculate, for each applicant, an intellectual property evaluation value in each technology classification in a predetermined period based on the acquisition information; "In the patent evaluation phase A2, a process (S200) for obtaining the patent data 200 and the patent attribution information 205 of specified IPC by the data acquiring section 105, a process (S210) for classifying the patent data for every prescribed period by the data classification section 115, a process (S220) for calculating the evaluation value of each patent data for every group by the evaluation value calculation section 120, a process (S230) for calculating the deviation value in the specified IPC of the evaluation value by the deviation value calculation section 125, a process (S240) for executing the classification of the patent data based on this deviation value, and a process (S250) for outputting the classified patent data by the output section 130, are performed" (Masuyama Par. 0143).
a distribution generation unit configured to generate a distribution based on the intellectual property evaluation value calculated by the calculation unit; and "FIG. 11 shows a graphic chart showing number of cases distribution of the deviation value directly calculated based on the evaluation raw score after calculating the evaluation raw score about a certain analysis object population's patent data, and the deviation value calculated after making logarithm. According to this embodiment, the evaluation value can be appropriately compared now by converting the evaluation value into logarithm (natural logarithm or other logarithm). In particular, since the number of cases distribution for every evaluation value becomes near log normal distribution in many cases, the number of cases distribution can be brought close to the normal distribution by converting the evaluation value into logarithm. Therefore, more suitable evaluation is achieved, if the deviation value, for example, is calculated after converting the evaluation value into logarithm" (Masuyama Par. 0230-0232).
a distribution placement unit configured to place the distribution. "FIG. 11 is a graph showing a deviation distribution calculated directly based on an evaluation raw score for patent data of a certain analysis target population, and a distribution of the number of deviation values calculated logarithmically" (Masuyama Par. 0230).
Regarding Claim 11,
Masuyama discloses, An information processing method comprising: acquiring predetermined acquisition information from intellectual property data; "Evaluation device of an embodiment of the present invention comprises: means for acquiring patent data of a plurality of patents belonging to a predetermined technical field and patent attribution information of each of the patent data from a patent database; means for classifying the acquired patent data into groups for each specified period" (Masuyama Par. 0011-0013, Par. 0223).
calculating, for each applicant, an intellectual property evaluation value in each technology classification in a predetermined period based on the acquisition information; and "In the patent evaluation phase A2, a process (S200) for obtaining the patent data 200 and the patent attribution information 205 of specified IPC by the data acquiring section 105, a process (S210) for classifying the patent data for every prescribed period by the data classification section 115, a process (S220) for calculating the evaluation value of each patent data for every group by the evaluation value calculation section 120, a process (S230) for calculating the deviation value in the specified IPC of the evaluation value by the deviation value calculation section 125, a process (S240) for executing the classification of the patent data based on this deviation value, and a process (S250) for outputting the classified patent data by the output section 130, are performed" (Masuyama Par. 0143).
generating a distribution based on the intellectual property evaluation value. "FIG. 11 shows a graphic chart showing number of cases distribution of the deviation value directly calculated based on the evaluation raw score after calculating the evaluation raw score about a certain analysis object population's patent data, and the deviation value calculated after making logarithm. According to this embodiment, the evaluation value can be appropriately compared now by converting the evaluation value into logarithm (natural logarithm or other logarithm). In particular, since the number of cases distribution for every evaluation value becomes near log normal distribution in many cases, the number of cases distribution can be brought close to the normal distribution by converting the evaluation value into logarithm. Therefore, more suitable evaluation is achieved, if the deviation value, for example, is calculated after converting the evaluation value into logarithm" (Masuyama Par. 0230-0232).
Regarding Claim 12,
Masuyama discloses, A program causing a computer to implement: acquiring predetermined acquisition information from intellectual property data; "Evaluation device of an embodiment of the present invention comprises: means for acquiring patent data of a plurality of patents belonging to a predetermined technical field and patent attribution information of each of the patent data from a patent database; means for classifying the acquired patent data into groups for each specified period" (Masuyama Par. 0011-0013, Par. 0074).
calculating, for each applicant, an intellectual property evaluation value in each technology classification in a predetermined period based on the acquisition information; and "In the patent evaluation phase A2, a process (S200) for obtaining the patent data 200 and the patent attribution information 205 of specified IPC by the data acquiring section 105, a process (S210) for classifying the patent data for every prescribed period by the data classification section 115, a process (S220) for calculating the evaluation value of each patent data for every group by the evaluation value calculation section 120, a process (S230) for calculating the deviation value in the specified IPC of the evaluation value by the deviation value calculation section 125, a process (S240) for executing the classification of the patent data based on this deviation value, and a process (S250) for outputting the classified patent data by the output section 130, are performed" (Masuyama Par. 0143).
generating a distribution based on the intellectual property evaluation value. "FIG. 11 shows a graphic chart showing number of cases distribution of the deviation value directly calculated based on the evaluation raw score after calculating the evaluation raw score about a certain analysis object population's patent data, and the deviation value calculated after making logarithm. According to this embodiment, the evaluation value can be appropriately compared now by converting the evaluation value into logarithm (natural logarithm or other logarithm). In particular, since the number of cases distribution for every evaluation value becomes near log normal distribution in many cases, the number of cases distribution can be brought close to the normal distribution by converting the evaluation value into logarithm. Therefore, more suitable evaluation is achieved, if the deviation value, for example, is calculated after converting the evaluation value into logarithm" (Masuyama Par. 0230-0232).
Regarding Claim 2,
Masuyama discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. Masuyama further discloses wherein the acquisition unit acquires, for each applicant, an evaluation value in each technology classification in a predetermined period as the acquisition information. "In the patent evaluation phase A2, a process (S200) for obtaining the patent data 200 and the patent attribution information 205 of specified IPC by the data acquiring section 105, a process (S210) for classifying the patent data for every prescribed period by the data classification section 115, a process (S220) for calculating the evaluation value of each patent data for every group by the evaluation value calculation section 120, a process (S230) for calculating the deviation value in the specified IPC of the evaluation value by the deviation value calculation section 125, a process (S240) for executing the classification of the patent data based on this deviation value, and a process (S250) for outputting the classified patent data by the output section 130, are performed" (Masuyama Par. 0143).
Regarding Claim 3,
Masuyama discloses the device of claim 2, as shown above. Masuyama further discloses wherein the evaluation value includes at least one of a number of applications, a number of published applications, a number of patents, a number of citations, a number of cited times, and a total of their weighted values. "The evaluation value calculating means may calculate the evaluation value of each of the patent data by using at least one of the information showing existence or nonexistence of a specified action, the information showing the number of times being cited and the information relating to a period about the patent data and under a rule given for each kind of the historical information" (Masuyama Par. 0025).
Regarding Claim 5,
Masuyama discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. Masuyama further discloses wherein the distribution generation unit generates a normal distribution as the distribution "In particular, since the number of cases distribution for every evaluation value becomes near log normal distribution in many cases, the number of cases distribution can be brought close to the normal distribution by converting the evaluation value into logarithm" (Masuyama Par. 0232).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuyama (US20100114587A1), in view of Yoshino (US20060122849A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
Masuyama discloses the device of claim 2, as shown above. Masuyama fails to disclose the calculation unit calculating difference information. Yoshino discloses, wherein the calculation unit calculates, using first acquisition information in a predetermined period and second acquisition information in a period different from the predetermined period of the first acquisition information in the acquisition information, a difference of the evaluation value in each technology classification in the second acquisition information with respect to the evaluation value in the technology classification in the first acquisition information as the intellectual property evaluation value and calculates a group of the intellectual property evaluation values as difference information. "With this means, the number of increasing and decreasing of patent registrations and the trend thereof are analyzed, using the patent information 220 derived from the patent information database 22 as the population. For example, the trend of the patent registrations of the relevant company is appreciated on the basis of the number of patents registered each year with reference to the number of patent registrations and the passage of time during which the patent registrations are acquired, as shown in FIG. 8. Further, the trend of the patent registrations of each relevant company is categorized and analyzed according to the technical field" (Yoshino Par. 0137).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note: It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the difference from the graph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the patent evaluating device of Masuyama with calculating evaluation values from difference information of Yoshino to allow a user to know tendencies of timing of management policies and research and development policies of a company to be searched by representing the number and the similarity rate of typical technical literatures having a high similarity rate and exceptional technical literatures having a low similarity rate in the order of filing the patent application for the relevant technology or publicly disclosing the technology (Yoshino Par. 0046).
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Masuyama and Yoshino disclose the device according to Claim 4, as shown above. Masuyama further discloses, wherein the distribution generation unit generates a normal distribution based on the difference information, acquires an expected value and a standard deviation, and holds the normal distribution, the expected value, and the standard deviation. “a standard deviation calculation means for calculating the average and standard deviation of the similarity rate on the basis of the number of technical literatures and the similarity rate, a standardization means for defining a standard similarity rate deviation by dividing the similarity rate thus obtained by the average of the similarity rate and the standard deviation, a demarcation means for sorting out the similarity rate deviation thus standardized into multiple regions based on the standard deviation of the similarity rate, and an output means for outputting notational information representing symbolically the existence and number of the technical literatures residing in a coordinate area defined by a coordinate axis denoting a similarity rate deviation region and another coordinate axis denoting the time of patent application or public disclosure with respect to the relevant technical literatures to one or more of a display means, a record means and transmitting means” (Masuyama Par. 0049). “FIG. 11 shows a graphic chart showing number of cases distribution of the deviation value directly calculated based on the evaluation raw score after calculating the evaluation raw score about a certain analysis object population's patent data, and the deviation value calculated after making logarithm. According to this embodiment, the evaluation value can be appropriately compared now by converting the evaluation value into logarithm (natural logarithm or other logarithm)” (Masuyama Par. 0230-0231).
Examiner Note: Figure 11 shows a normal distribution.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuyama (US20100114587A1), in view of SPSS Tutorials.
Masuyama discloses the device according to Claim 5, as shown above. Masuyama fails to disclose the normal distribution on coordinate axes in two dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution and a base axis as at least one of an expected value of the normal distribution, a standard deviation of the normal distribution, and a total of their weighted values. SPSS Tutorials teaches Normal Distributions. SPSS Tutorials further discloses, the normal distribution on coordinate axes in two dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution and a base axis as at least one of an expected value of the normal distribution, a standard deviation of the normal distribution, and a total of their weighted values.[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
480
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the patent evaluating device of Masuyama with a distribution graph to include an axis of a random variable (probability density), and an expected variable (mean) of SPSS Tutorials since graphing and labeling axis to calculations is a mathematical concept, and is old and well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 10,
Masuyama discloses the device according to Claim 5, as shown above. Masuyama fails to disclose the distribution placement unit places the normal distribution on coordinate axes in two dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution and a time axis. SPSS Tutorials teaches Normal Distributions. SPSS Tutorials further discloses, wherein the distribution placement unit places the normal distribution on coordinate axes in two dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution and a time axis.
PNG
media_image3.png
396
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the patent evaluating device of Masuyama with a distribution graph in two dimensions with a random variable axis (frequency) and a time axis of SPSS Tutorials since graphing and labeling axis in response to calculations and data is a mathematical concept, and is old and well known in the art.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuyama (US20100114587A1), in view of Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution.
Regarding Claim 7,
Masuyama discloses the device according to Claim 5, as shown above. Masuyama fails to disclose wherein the distribution placement unit places the normal distribution on coordinate axes in three dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution, a base axis as at least one of an expected value of the normal distribution, a standard deviation of the normal distribution, and a total of their weighted values, and a probability density axis as a probability density of the normal distribution. Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution discloses probability distributions. Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution further discloses the distribution placement unit places the normal distribution on coordinate axes in three dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution, a base axis as at least one of an expected value of the normal distribution, a standard deviation of the normal distribution, and a total of their weighted values, and a probability density axis as a probability density of the normal distribution. “Two Continuous Random Variables -Analogous to the probability density function of a single continuous random variable, a Joint probability density function can be defined over two-dimensional space”. (Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution Slide 19).
PNG
media_image4.png
595
874
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the patent evaluating device of Masuyama with graphing a probability function and labeling the axis of Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution since graphing and labeling axis in response to calculations and data is a mathematical concept, and is old and well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 9,
Masuyama discloses the device according to Claim 5, as shown above. Masuyama fails to disclose wherein the distribution placement unit places the normal distribution on coordinate axes in three dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution, a probability density axis as a probability density of the normal distribution, and a time axis. Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution discloses probability distributions. Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution further discloses, wherein the distribution placement unit places the normal distribution on coordinate axes in three dimensions, with a random variable axis as a random variable of the normal distribution, a probability density axis as a probability density of the normal distribution, and a time axis. “Two Continuous Random Variables -Analogous to the probability density function of a single continuous random variable, a Joint probability density function can be defined over two-dimensional space”. (Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution Slide 19).
PNG
media_image4.png
595
874
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the patent evaluating device of Masuyama with graphing a probability function and labeling the axis of Diza, Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distribution since graphing and labeling axis in response to calculations and data is a mathematical concept, and is old and well known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./ /JESSICA LEMIEUX/Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights