DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA , AIA Status
The present application, filed on, after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 and 09/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite “generating information regarding a first difference between the acquired first and second measures…,” and this generated information is not defined by the claims nor within the specification. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to define what this generated information entails. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected for their failure to cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite “the first difference being at least one of a difference in structure of graph data and a difference in branch probability of an object assigned to a node of the conditional branch,” and this structure of graph data and branch probability are not defined by the claims nor within the specification. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to define what structure of graph data and branch probability entail. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected for their failure to cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite “generating correspondence information…the second difference being at least one of a difference in effect value and a difference in certainty factor,” and this correspondence information, effect value and certainty factor are not defined by the claims nor within the specification. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to define what this correspondence information, effect value and certainty factor entail. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected for their failure to cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the limitation "the conditional branch." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as the claims previously recites a plurality of conditional branches. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected for their respective dependencies.
Claim 1, 7 and 13 recite the limitation "the measure in one of the graph data." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as this is the first recitation of a measure in one of the graph data. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected for their respective dependencies.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the limitation "the measure in the other one." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as this is the first recitation of a measure in the other one. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected for their respective dependencies.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 recite the limitation "the same conditional branch." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as this is the first recitation of a same conditional branch.
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.
At step 1, independent claims 1, 7 and 13 recite a method, a computer-readable recording medium, and an apparatus and are therefore statutory classes of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim(s) recite(s):
acquiring a first measure and a second measure configured from graph data including a plurality of conditional branches coupled by a directed edge and nodes coupled to destinations to which each of the plurality of conditional branches is branched;
first generating information regarding a first difference between the acquired first and second measures, the first difference being at least one of a difference in structure of graph data and a difference in branch probability of an object assigned to a node of the conditional branch; and
second generating correspondence information in which the generated information regarding the first difference is associated with information regarding a second difference between the acquired first and second measures, the second difference being at least one of a difference in effect value and a difference in certainty factor.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that could be performed mentally. That is, other than reciting a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a computer, and an information processing apparatus to perform the acquiring and generating steps, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed mentally/by a human using pen and paper. For example, a user can mentally/with pen acquire a first measure and a second measure configured from graph data including a plurality of conditional branches coupled by a directed edge and nodes coupled to destinations to which each of the plurality of conditional branches is branched; mentally/with pen and paper generate information regarding a first difference between the acquired first and second measures, the first difference being at least one of a difference in structure of graph data and a difference in branch probability of an object assigned to a node of the conditional branch; and mentally/with pen and paper second generate correspondence information in which the generated information regarding the first difference is associated with information regarding a second difference between the acquired first and second measures, the second difference being at least one of a difference in effect value and a difference in certainty factor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a computer, and an information processing apparatus. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a computer, and an information processing apparatus amount 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. There are no additional elements, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 8 and 14 recite wherein the first generating includes calculating the difference in structure of graph data based on a cost when the measure in one of the graph data for the first measure and the graph data for the second measure is converted into the measure in the other one. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 recite wherein the cost corresponds to a tree edit distance. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 recite wherein the first generating includes calculating the difference in branch probability based on a difference in a number of objects allocated by a node of the same conditional branch between the first measure and the second measure. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Claims 5, 11 and 17 recite wherein the second generating includes calculating the difference in effect value based on a difference in degree of influence of the plurality of conditional branches on the effect value between the first measure and the second measure. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 do recite any additional abstract ideas, but do recite the additional element of outputting a radar chart in which at least one of the difference in structure of graph data, the difference in branch probability, the difference in effect value, and the difference in certainty factor is plotted in a polygonal shape. This additional element is recited at a high level generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (CN-113516141-A): optimization method of depth measurement model, device and storage medium, for improving the depth measurement model of the characteristic judging capability;
Fukushi (US 2019/0150796): acquires feature information indicating a feature of a motion of a target person when using a stick, based on first measurement data acquired from a first sensor installed at the stick and second measurement data acquired from a second sensor installed at the target person that determines a walking state of the target person, based on the acquired feature information;
Hill (US 2007/0046951): measurement and compensation of atmospheric turbulence effects and other changes on properties of a gas on accuracy of interferometric measurements of wavefront interferometry;
Jia (CN-116362167-A): extracts the information of the condition selection module in the code, and by considering the difference between the condition selection module of the condition item, to design the circuit formed by the series-parallel structure of the two-path multiplexer, for realizing the condition selection module;
Kale (US 2018/0052884): an intelligent personal assistant system includes scalable artificial intelligence (AI) that permeates the fabric of existing messaging platforms to provide an intelligent online personal assistant (or “bot”). The system may leverage existing inventories and curated databases to provide intelligent, personalized answers in predictive turns of communication between a human user and an intelligent online personal assistant;
Katsuki (US 2018/0307999): receiving designation of an input node for which a node value is generated from collected data, an option node to which a node value is arbitrarily provided, and an estimation target node to be a target of a node value estimation, in a graph including nodes and directional edges; and identifying a directional edge for which a conditional probability is to be acquired to measure the node value of the estimation target node, from among the directional edges, by traversing a directional edge that can propagate an effect to a node value from the estimation target node. The identifying includes, for the option node, traversing both a directional edge that can propagate an effect if a node value is provided to the option node and a directional edge that can propagate an effect if a node value is not provided to the option node;
Neely (US 10,088,389): capturing, storing, analyzing, and reporting data obtained from measurement devices, such as handheld measurement tools and other sensors that perform measurements of equipment that are useful, in part, for improving the speed, accuracy, and ease of use of measurement data collected from measurement devices, especially where the measurement data results from multiple simultaneous or near simultaneous measurements of different types of data;
Noot (US 2019/0033727): measuring a process effect parameter relating to a manufacturing process for manufacturing integrated circuits on a substrate, the method comprising the steps of: determining for a structure, a first quality metric value for a quality metric from a plurality of measurement values each relating to a different measurement condition while cancelling or mitigating for the effect of the process effect parameter on the plurality of measurement values; determining for the structure, a second quality metric value for the quality metric from at least one measurement value relating to at least one measurement condition without cancelling or mitigating for the effect of the process effect parameter on the at least one measurement value; and calculating a process effect parameter value for the process effect parameter from said first quality metric value and said second quality metric value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
