Ex Parte Arnold et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 13, 201713243656 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation