Ex Parte Arnold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2017

13243656 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/243,656 09/23/2011 William G. Arnold 11-0554-US-NP 1291
63759 7590 06/15/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CASANOVA, JORGE A
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM G. ARNOLD
and
BRIAN WARN
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,65 61
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5 and 7—21, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing
Company. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed December 19, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed October 17, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action
mailed November 30, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification, filed
September 23, 2011 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for analyzing
unstructured data using an associative memory and an analyzer in
communication with the associative memory. Title; Abstract. The
associative memory includes data having associations, and can be queried
based on data relationships. Spec. 1 8. In response to the query, the
analyzer parses and arranges data into units, and establishes an ordered list
ranking the units in an order of precedence based on the query. Spec. 8,
38. As such, Appellants’ invention enables strategic planning to rapidly
develop operational plans for efficient use of available resources for
particular situations, such as military missions. Spec, 1, 39, 42.
Unstructured data processed by Appellants’ invention may be after-action
reports, such as unstructured free-text data submitted by military personnel
on a periodic basis or after events, such as battles or patrols. Spec. 14.
Representative Claim
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics'.
1. A system for analyzing unstructured data, comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
storing an associative memory including a plurality of data
having a plurality of associations;
wherein the plurality of data is collected into associated
units of data;
wherein the associative memory is configured to be
queried based on at least one relationship selected from the group
that includes direct relationships and indirect relationships
among the plurality of data;
wherein the associative memory further includes a
content-addressable structure;
2
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
a computer processor in communication with the non-
transitory computer readable storage medium, the computer
processor configured to execute an analyzer in communication
with the associative memory, wherein the analyzer is configured
to parse and arrange the plurality of data into comparable units
in response to a query, wherein the analyzer is configured to
receive the query as an insert perspective of the associative
memory,
wherein the analyzer, when executed, is configured to
establish an ordered list ranking the comparable units in an order
of precedence based on the query; and
storing the ordered list in the non-transitory computer
readable storage medium.
App. Br. 29-35 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections & References
(1) Claims 1—4, 12, 13, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fleming et al. (US
2010/0306227 Al; published Dec. 2, 2010; “Fleming”) and Quadracci et al.
(US 2010/0205192 Al; published Aug. 12, 2010; “Quadracci”). Final Act.
4—8.
(2) Claims 5, 8—11, 14—17, 19, and 203 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fleming, Quadracci, and
Caneva (US 2007/0050239 Al; published Mar. 1, 2007). Final Act. 8—11.
3 Claims 17 and 20 are rejected (see Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary),
13) but not listed by the Examiner under a specific obviousness rejection;
instead, the Examiner only states “claim 17 recite[s] the same corresponding
limitations as set forth in claims 10 and 20 above, thus the claim is rejected
accordingly,” and “claim 20 recite[s] the same corresponding limitations as
set forth in claims 10 and 17 above, thus the claim is rejected accordingly.”
Final Act. 13 (emphasis omitted). We find this oversight on the Examiner’s
part is harmless error and interpret the rejection of dependent claims 17 and
3
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
(3) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fleming, Quadracci, and Swaminathan et al. (US
6,425,525 Bl; issued July 30, 2002; “Swaminathan”). Final Act. 11—12.
(4) Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fleming, Quadracci, and Bensoussan et al. (US 7,398,221
Bl; issued July 8, 2008; “Bensoussan”). Final Act. 12—13.
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are:
(1) Whether the combination of Fleming and Quadracci
teaches or suggests the disputed “insert perspective” limitation,
i.e., “wherein the analyzer is configured to receive the query as
an insert perspective of the associative memory,” as recited in
Appellants’ independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 12 and 18; and
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in considering Caneva,
Swaminathan, and Bensoussan, as analogous art.
App. Br. 7—28; Reply Br. 2—7.
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1—4, 12, 13, and 18
based on Fleming and Quadracci
With respect to independent claim 1 and similarly, independent claims
12 and 18, the Examiner finds Fleming’s associative memory network,
including taxonomically-classified data mapped to a user ontology for
20 to be rejected under § 103(a) over Fleming, Quadracci, and Caneva.
Further discussion of claims 17 and 20 is presented in our analysis below.
4
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
processing queries, teaches an associative memory that includes data having
associations and is configured to be queried based on direct or indirect
relationships among data, as claimed. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Fleming H 3, 6,
59, 76—79, 82, 93, 153, Figs. 1—2). The Examiner further finds Fleming’s
system returns rank-ordered results in response to a query, thereby teaching
an analyzer configured to establish an ordered list ranking the comparable
units in an order of precedence based on the query, as claimed. Final Act. 5
(citing Fleming 1151).
The Examiner acknowledges Fleming does not explicitly teach “an
analyzer in communication with the associative memory, wherein the
analyzer is configured to parse and arrange the plurality of data into
comparable units in response to a query, wherein the analyzer is configured
to receive the query as an insert perspective of the associative memory,” but
relies on Quadracci for teaching such analyzer. Final Act. 5. In particular,
the Examiner finds Quadracci’s entity analytics engine (21) receives queries
and communicates with an associative memory (20) to parse and arrange
data representing entities (such as aircraft parts of various fasteners—rivets,
bolts, and nuts) which are grouped by entity type (e.g., a “fastener” entity
type). Final Act. 5—6 (citing Quadracci 31—32, 36, 41, 57, 59). The
Examiner finds Quadracci’s “entity types” are “different categories or types
of information (or even different ways or perspectives to remember the
information) that may be useful in the non-conformance analysis process.”
Ans. 13 (citing Quadracci 131). Thus, the Examiner interprets Quadracci’s
“entity type” as the claimed “insert perspective,” and finds that Quadracci’s
analyzer is configured to receive a query as an insert perspective of the
associative memory because Quadracci’s analyzer receives a user’s free text
5
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
query for non-conformance information (e.g., anomalies with an aircraft
system) concerning a specific serial number (entity type) of a part. Final
Act. 3, 5—6 (citing Quadracci Tflf 31—32, 36, 41, 57, 59; Fig. 10).
Quadracci’s Figures 1 and 10 are reproduced below with additional
markings for illustration.
Quadracci’s Figure 1 illustrates anon-conformance analysis system having
an associative learning agent 10 and an associative memory 20, for
determining non-conformance, i.e., anomalies with a system or system
portion. See Quadracci ]Hf 24—26, 29.
6
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
9C4'>
&/ A ' <&/ <$/ &/
*■ \■ r*!rr.' o a a -t-t.'pv
*•’ A. l * A i .L-.: o 5 .«AiA
_.,§Q2.f
u □
900 '>
PART #
SUBSYSTEM'
sos.v.
:"-;n □ □ MANUFACTURERS USING PART'
‘"'-x““^ENTITY
902-3, 'x viJicvv:
siq.->
gig
A— .,-902,
Hi |2j Li 1 AIRCRAFT MOOElr
... 902*
1 :i LINES
21 1 NON-GONFORIVtANGE -
'AU'S
FIGURE 10
Quadracci’s Figure 10 illustrates a plurality of entity types and entities that
may be used in forming the associative memory to tailor for non­
conformance analysis and component lifecycle analysis. See Quadracci
1122, 59.
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Quadracci. In particular, Appellants contend Quadracci does not teach an
“analyzer [that] is configured to receive the query as an insert perspective of
the associative memory,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11—18; Reply Br.
2—7. Appellants argue the term “insert perspective” is expressly defined in
Appellants’ Specification as follows:
As used herein, a “perspective” may be a “point of view”. With
respect to an associative memory, a perspective may be a choice
of a context for a particular aspect of a user’s domain. As used
herein, an “insert perspective ” is a type of perspective that may
be fed back into an associative memory, and which may be
viewable from other perspectives as a possible resource.
App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. 133). Appellants argue the Examiner has not
accounted for such a definition in Quadracci and “has not shown how the
asserted entity or entity type is a point of view, a choice of context for a user
7
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
domain, or a type of perspective” that is “fed back into the associative
memory and which may be viewable from other perspectives as a possible
resource.” App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5. Appellants acknowledge Quadracci
teaches “some kind of vague feedback system in paragraph 36” but argue
“Quadracci never discloses the feedback required of an insert perspective.”
App. Br. 13, 16. Appellants additionally argue Quadracci only describes
entity types that are “a specific thing - a name, a type of part, a device, a
serial number, etc.” and “[ri\othing in the list [of Quadracci] hints at what
Applicant has explicitly defined as an ‘insert perspective’.” Reply Br. 4
(citing Quadracci 131).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive and commensurate
with the scope of Appellants’ claim 1. Initially, we note that the descriptions
of “perspective” and “insert perspective” in Appellants’ Specification do not
rise to the level of definitions. Rather, Appellants’ Specification provides
that “a ‘perspective’ may be a ‘point of view’” and “may be a choice of a
context for a particular aspect of a user’s domain.” See Spec. 133 (emphasis
added). Thus, the Specification merely provides discussion of non-limiting
examples (i.e., “may be”) of the term “perspective.” See Spec. 133.
Additionally, Appellants’ Specification is silent regarding the meaning of the
term “point of view’” mentioned at paragraph 33. The Specification also
broadly describes the term “context” (mentioned in paragraph 33) as a topic
of interest (such as a “military context,” a “combat situation,” and contexts
of “scientific experiments” and “business ventures”), and the term “domain”
(mentioned in paragraph 33) as an informational field pertaining to data
(such as “vehicle maintenance” and “military operations” (Spec 175)). See
Spec. 1133, 42, 58,75, 83.
8
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
Regarding the term “insert perspective,” the Specification provides
that “an ‘insert perspective’ is a type ofperspective that may be fed back into
an associative memory, and which may be viewable from other perspectives
as a possible resource.” See Spec. 133 (emphasis added). As the term
“perspective” has not been explicitly defined in the Specification, neither has
“insert perspective”—which is “a type of perspective.” See Spec. 133.
The Specification provides examples of “insert perspectives” such as
“armaments perspective 604, communications perspective 606, or situations
perspective 608,” which enable a user to search for types of situations (e.g.,
via situations perspective 608), such as situations relevant to training. See
Spec. 11 81, 83-84, Figs. 7-8.
Based on Appellants’ Specification, the Examiner has broadly
interpreted the term “insert perspective” as encompassing Quadracci’s entity
type. Final Act. 3 (citing Quadracci 1 36, Fig. 10); Ans. 12—13 (citing
Quadracci 131). We find the Examiner’s interpretation reasonable and
consistent with Appellants’ Specification. In particular, Quadracci’s entity
type—such as “a specific entity type called ‘serial number’ . . . [that] may
have a number of specific, different entities associated therewith that each
list a specific serial number”—is commensurate with Appellants’ “insert
perspective” as claimed and described in the Specification. See Quadracci
132; Final Act. 5—6. Similar to Appellants’ “insert perspective,”
Quadracci’s entity type of “serial number” enables query processing because
Quadracci’s analyzer (entity analytics engine) receives “a free text query
by the user for non-conformance information concerning a specific
serial number of a part (i.e. User’s perspective/interest)” to “search the
associative memory 20 for entities stored therein that have a
9
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
relationship (direct relationship) to that specific serial number.” Final
Act. 5—6 (citing Quadracci Tflf 32, 41); see also Quadracci 139 (describing
“pertinent entities types and the specific entities that correlate with the non­
conformance information provided by the user”).
Appellants argue Quadracci only describes entity types that are “a
specific thing - a name, a type of part, a device, a serial number, etc.” and
“[ri\othing in the list [of Quadracci] hints at what Applicant has explicitly
defined as an ‘insert perspective’.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Quadracci 1 31).
This argument is not commensurate with the term “insert perspective” as
claimed and with the broad description of “insert perspective” in Appellants’
Specification. In particular, Appellants’ Specification describes “armaments
perspective” which includes groups of weapon parts and devices. See Spec.
1181,92-93.
Appellants additionally argue Quadracci does not disclose “feeding
back perspectives” and “entities that are fed back into the system,” in
contrast to Appellants’ “insert perspective” that is “fed back into the
associative memory and viewable from other perspectives as a possible
resource” as described in Appellants’ Specification. Reply Br. 5—7.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As correctly recognized by the
Examiner, Quadracci’s entity types are perspectives that may be fed back
into the associative memory by learning from Quadracci’s information tools
that “enable the system to effectively Team’ more and more about the
lifecycles of various components as the system 10 is used is more and more
over a period of time.” See Quadracci 159. As the Examiner finds,
Quadracci enables its “associative learning memory” (see Quadracci 129) to
leam when
10
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
the entity analytic engine [in Quadracci’s paragraph 36] may
update the associative memory with any new information that
was stored in the information tool, and the updating involve
populating existing entities with additional information [and]
even creating new entity. Also, . . . ^[0031 [of Quadracci] . . .
details, “entity types can thus be thought of as different
categories or types of information (or even different ways or
perspectives to remember the information) that may be useful in
the non-conformance analysis process.” It is implied that the
process of updating an associative memory via the creation of a
new entity is an "insert perspective”.
Ans. 12—13 (citing Quadracci H 31, 36); see also Quadracci 161 (“when
learning information from one data source about non-conformances or other
issues, many different entity types can be updated”). We agree with the
Examiner that Quadracci’s updating entity types teach insert perspectives
being fed back into the associative memory, as described in Appellants’
Specification at paragraph 33.
Appellants also argue Quadracci’s paragraph 36 teaches only “some
kind of vague feedback system” and a “generic information feedback
description,” in contrast to Appellants’ definition of “insert perspective.”
App. Br. 16. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because Appellants’
Specification is imprecise regarding the term “fed back,” which is
(identically) mentioned only in paragraphs 33 and 81. A feedback example
appears to be provided in paragraph 83 of Appellants’ Specification, which
broadly describes “comparable units [that] may be saved, retained, and used
again,” and “may be re-entered into the associative memory in order to
create additional relationships that can be searched or otherwise used by the
associative memory.” See Spec. 1 83. This description is commensurate
11
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
with Quadracci’s associative memory learning via entity type updates, to
improve future searches.
Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and the rejections of its dependent claims 2-4, which
Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 7.4
Independent claims 12 and 18 recite the same contested “insert
perspective” limitation. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain
the rejection of independent claims 12 and 18 not separately argued, and the
rejection of dependent claims 13 not separately argued.
§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 5, 7—11, 14—16, 19, and 21
based on Caneva, Swaminathan, Bensoussan, Fleming, and Quadracci
With respect to claims 5, 7—11, 14, 19, and 21, Appellants argue
Caneva, Swaminathan, and Bensoussan are non-analogous and outside the
scope of Appellants’ endeavor and, as such, cannot be relied upon to support
the obviousness rejection of these claims. App. Br. 18—28. In particular,
Appellants argue “Caneva is directed towards the field of evaluating the
reediness [sic] profile of an organization including medical facilities,” in
contrast to Appellants’ claims “directed towards the field of ‘analyzing
4 We note Appellants’ listing of a rejection of “claims 1, 2, 3, and 21” as
“obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Fleming (United States Patent
Application Publication Number 2010/0306227) in view of Quadracci
(United States Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0268673)”
(App. Br. 7) is incorrect, as it refers to another Quadracci reference and
rejection from a previous Office Action (mailed March 24, 2014) which is
not the subject of the present appeal.
12
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
unstructured data’.” App. Br. 19. Appellants also argue “Swaminathan
relates to the problems associated with data collection, retrieval and analysis.
. . . [and] solves this problem using a remote input device and a host
computer,” which “does not comport with the field of invention of the
claims, nor to the problem faced by Applicant.” App. Br. 26. Further,
Appellants argue “Bensoussan is directed to the field of resource planning
methods used by manufacturing companies and other organizations,” in
contrast to Appellants’ claims, which are “directed towards the field of
‘analyzing unstructured data’.” App. Br. 27.
We disagree. “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a
fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir.
1987)). Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is
analogous:
(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved.
Id. at 658—59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In
re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). “A reference is reasonably
pertinent if... it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals,
logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem.” Id. at 659.
13
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Caneva, Swaminathan, and
Bensoussan are directed to organizing data. Final Act. 8—13. Specifically,
Caneva describes “a method of analyzing an organization’s personnel and
material resource data” (Abstract), Swaminathan is directed to “inputting,
retrieving, organizing and analyzing data” (Title), and Bensoussan organizes
resource data to enable “strategic resource planning that accounts for
uncertainties inherent in the forecasting process” (see Bensoussan col. 1,11.
7—11, col. 2,11. 7—24). Organizing data is also Appellants’ field of
endeavor, in light of Appellants’ Specification, which states: “[t]he present
disclosure relates generally to using vast stores of data in an associative
memory to enable strategic planners to rapidly develop operational plans for
the efficient use of available resources in view of one or more particular
situations in a theater of operations.” Spec. 11. As such, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Caneva, Swaminathan, and
Bensoussan are non-analogous art. App. Br. 18—28.
As Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of 5,
7—11, 14, 19, and 21. We similarly sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16
(rejected based on Fleming, Quadracci, and Caneva) not separately argued.
§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 17 and 20
Claim 17 is rejected (see Final Act. 1, Office Action Summary, and
Final Act. 13) but not listed by the Examiner under a specific obviousness
rejection. Instead, the Examiner only states “claim 17 recite[s] the same
corresponding limitations as set forth in claims 10 and 20 above, thus the
claim is rejected accordingly.” Final Act. 13 (emphasis omitted).
14
Appeal 2017-003550
Application 13/243,656
Claim 20 is rejected (see Final Act. 1, Office Action Summary, and
Final Act. 13) but not listed by the Examiner under a specific obviousness
rejection. Instead, the Examiner only states “claim 20 recite[s] the same
corresponding limitations as set forth in claims 10 and 17 above, thus the
claim is rejected accordingly.” Final Act. 13 (emphasis omitted).
We find this oversight on the Examiner’s part is harmless error and
interpret the rejection of dependent claims 17 and 20 to be rejected under
§ 103(a) over Fleming, Quadracci, and Caneva. For the same reasons
discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 17 and 20, which Appellants do not address.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—5 and 7—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5
and 7—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
15