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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and a device; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of generating a recommended measure from a plurality of measures to be undertaken. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea as will be addressed below.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 7, 13, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
generating stakeholder-specific graphs representing a distribution of relative goodness for a plurality of measures individually evaluated by a plurality of stakeholders;
generating a predetermined graph obtained by combining the stakeholder-specific graphs; and
determining a recommended measure from the plurality of measures based on the predetermined graph
The above limitations are reciting a process by which input is received from users (stakeholders) that represents the goodness of a particular recommendation, and that is used to generate graphs for individual stakeholders. The stakeholder graphs are combined to create the predetermined graph. The claimed steps can be performed by people manually with no technology at all. Graphs can be generated on paper by humans and can be combined as claimed by also using paper (and pen or pencil). The claimed steps are undertaken to evaluate a given proposal in the context of a business decision and is reciting a commercial practice. Evaluating proposed measures and generating consensus as to what measure to proceed with is a commercial practice of people evaluating a proposal(s). As is stated in the specification, it is known to receive the input from various stakeholder about a given proposal and to use the input from the stakeholders to make decisions on how to proceed with a given proposal. The claim is reciting the decision making process that is used by people (a business, company) to evaluate a proposal of some kind. This is itself human activity that is a commercial practice.
For claim 1, there are no additional elements claimed for consideration. The claim is composed of nothing but the abstract idea. People can generate graphs and determine recommended measures. The computer of the preamble is not brought into the body of the claim in any manner such that the method would be requiring the computer. No additional element(s) is/are claimed. However, a computer has been addressed for sake of argument, because it amounts to a link to computer implementation as is recited in independent claims 7 and 13.
For claim 7, the claim recites an additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program to cause a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea.
For claim 13, the claim recites the additional elements of a memory and a processor configured to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea.
For claims 1 (assuming a computer was claimed for the method), 7, 13, the additional elements amount to claiming that the abstract idea is being implemented by a computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory (non-transitory CRM) that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer, where the computer is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea that can otherwise be practiced by people. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, regarding claims 1, 7, 13, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a computing device with a processor and memory, to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the PEG found in the MPEP 2106.
For claims 2, 8, 14, the abstract idea is being further defined by the claimed element of “generating of the predetermined graph includes assigning weights according to a power relationship of the plurality of stakeholders to the stakeholder-specific graphs, and generating the predetermined graph based on weighted stakeholder-specific graphs.” No additional element is claimed for consideration. People can perform the recited function(s). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 3, 9, 15, the claimed generating of the predetermined graph includes generating the predetermined graph based on multiplication of the stakeholder-specific graphs is a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 1. No additional element is claimed for consideration. People can perform the recited function(s). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 4, 10, 16, the claimed determining of the measure includes comparing a numerical value on the predetermined graph with a threshold value and determining a measure corresponding to a specific numerical value that is equal to or greater than the threshold value as the recommended measure is a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 1. People can perform the recited function(s). No additional element is claimed for consideration. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 5, 11, 17, the claimed acquiring the relative goodness based on an input by the plurality of stakeholders; and outputting a determined recommended measure” is a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 1. Acquiring input from others and outputting a recommended measure is what defines the abstract idea and is the act of obtaining the views and opinion of stakeholders to arrive at a decision on a proposal. The claim recites the additional element of an input device to receive the input and a display device to display the output. The recitation to the input device and the display device is taken as another instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea. All computers have an input device that is used to receive input (mouse, keyboard, touchscreen as examples), and all computers have a display to allow for output to a user via a graphical user interface. The claimed input device and display device read on the use of a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea and does not amount to more than a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 12, 18, the claimed “wherein the plurality of stakeholders are independent interested parties having conflicting interests with each other in a single project” is a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 1. No additional element is claimed for consideration. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyakoshi et al. (20210319463).
For claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13,17, 18, Miyakoshi discloses a system and method for consensus building, see paragraph 002. Miyakoshi discloses generating stakeholder-specific graphs representing a distribution of relative goodness for a plurality of measures individually evaluated by a plurality of stakeholders, see Figure 11. The different stakeholders are different people (independent parties) and have conflicting interests as claimed, even though that limitation does not define anything at all to the claimed invention that is generating graphs and determining a recommended measure. Describing the stakeholders with adjectives does not further recite anything to the claimed invention. Figure 11 shows the relative distribution of the goodness for a given measure (cost) that was evaluated by different stakeholders. The stakeholders input data using an input device, see figure 8 as an example. Miyakoshi discloses generating a predetermined graph obtained by combining the stakeholder-specific graphs, see figures 12 and 13. Disclosed is that the stakeholder graphs are combined to show their data in the claimed predetermined graph. Miyakoshi also teaches that the predetermined graph is used to determine a recommended measure. This is done by using the graph to identify the areas of overlap between the various stakeholders, so that a consensus can be obtained for a given measure. See paragraphs 090, 091. FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram for illustrating an overlap range that is an overlap between ranges of more than one evaluation index 320. In FIG. 12, three users, namely, the users 120A to 120C specify consensus ranges 1201 to 1203 for one evaluation index 320 and another evaluation index 320, namely, the cost 321 and the local economy circulation 323, and an overlap range in which the consensus ranges 1201 to 1203 overlap is illustrated in a two-dimensional evaluation index graph 1200. A measure can be selected based on the overlap range found in the graph. This anticipates what is claimed.
For claims 4, 10, 16, Miyakoshi teaches the use of a threshold value, as is shown in figure 8. Threshold values in terms of maximum and minimums are used and for a measure to be adapted, it must have values that fall in the threshold ranges and that satisfies the overlap in ranges for the different stakeholders as is represented in figures 12, 13.
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) 2, 8, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakoshi et al. (20210319463) in view of Eidelman et al. (20230214949).
For claims 2, 8, 14, not disclosed by Miyakoshi is generating of the predetermined graph includes assigning weights according to a power relationship of the plurality of stakeholders to the stakeholder-specific graphs, and generating the predetermined graph based on weighted stakeholder-specific graphs/
Eidelman discloses a system and method for analyzing policy through use of graphs. This disclosure generally relates to systems and methods for generating and analyzing policy, policymaker, and organizational entities and relationships through the construction of issue-based knowledge graphs. Paragraph 185 teaches that:
“In addition to ideology rankings, systems and methods consistent with the present disclosure may generate an interconnectedness model. For example, in such a model, a plurality of policymakers may be represented as a network with each node representing a policymaker. In certain aspects, the edges of the network may be binary—that is, representing a connection or lack thereof. In other aspects, the edges may be weighted, for example, with a higher weight indicating a closer relationship between nodes. Weights may be calculated using a plurality of factors, such as the number of times two policymakers have voted together, sponsored together, received donations from similar organizations, attended the same school or schools, and the like.”
Eidelman teaches that certain policymakers can receive more weight than others due to a relationship strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Miyakoshi with the ability to weight the relationships for the stakeholders, as taught by Eidelman, so that different stakeholders would have different weights (influence) that is used to generate the graphs. This would yield the predictable results of allowing for weighting of the individual stakeholder evaluation to occur and to have that carry over to the predetermined graph that is generated from the stakeholder graphs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (WO 2016/072996) discloses a system and method for generating composite network policy graphs based on multiple network policy graphs input by network users that may have different goals for the network. The resulting composite network policy graph can be used to program a network so that it meets the requirements necessary to achieve the goals of at least some of the network users. The method can include receiving multiple network policy graphs, generating composite endpoint groups based on relationships between endpoint groups and policy graph sources, generating composite paths based on the relationships between the endpoints and the network policy graphs, generating a composite network policy graph based on the composite endpoint groups and the composite paths, and analyzing the composite network policy graph to determine conflicts or errors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights