Ex Parte Rajpathak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

13045310 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/045,310 03/10/2011
65798 7590 04/25/2016
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dnyanesh Rajpathak
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P009254-ISL-MJL 2657
EXAMINER
RIFKIN, BEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DNYANESH RAJPATHAK and SATNAM SINGH
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9--11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20,
which are all the claims pending in this appeal. Claims 3, 8, 12, and 16 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Motors. App.
Br. 4.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Jan. 10, 2014 ("App.
Br."); Reply Brief filed May 21, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer
mailed Mar. 21, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed Aug. 16, 2013
("Final Act."); and original Specification filed Mar. 10, 2011 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention relates to a method and system for developing
fault models from unstructured text documents, such as text descriptions
from customers and service technicians for use in real-time fault diagnosis
onboard a vehicle or off-board at service shops. Spec. i-f 5; Abstract. Claims
1, 11, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants'
invention, as reproduced below:
1. A method for creating a fault model for a hardware or
software system, said method comprising:
providing an unstructured text document contammg
diagnostic information about the hardware or software system;
extracting descriptive terms from the unstructured text
document using an ontology and heuristic rules, including
creating sentence fragments by detecting sentence boundaries,
removing non-descriptive words, identifYing parts, symptoms,
and failure modes, and performingfrequency analysis to identifY
frequency of occurrence of particular symptoms with particular
failure modes in the sentence fragments;
classifying the descriptive terms into types;
merging phrases in the descriptive terms which mean the
same thing but are worded differently; and
assembling the fault model from the descriptive terms,
including creating rows of the failure modes, creating columns
of the symptoms, and placing correlation values in intersections
of the rows and the columns, where the correlation values are
based on the frequency analysis.
App. Br. 28 (Claims App'x) (disputed limitations in italics).
2
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
Shanahan
Bell
Fung
Treyz
Evidence Considered
US 2003/0033288 Al
US 2010/0262867 Al
US 6,687 ,689 B 1
US 6,526,335 B 1
Feb. 13,2003
Oct. 14, 2010
Feb.3,2004
Feb.25,2003
Jittiwut Suwatthikul et al. "Automotive Network Diagnostic
Systems," IEEE 2006 ("Suwatthikul").
Examiner's Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 9, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shanahan, Suwatthikul, and Bell. Final
Act. 2-10.
(2) Claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shanahan, Suwatthikul, Bell, and Fung. Final Act.
10-12.
(3) Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shanahan, Suwatthikul, Bell, and Treyz. Final Act.
12-14.
(4) Claims 11and14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shanahan, Suwatthikul, Bell, and Treyz. Final Act.
14--21.
(5) Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shanahan, Suwatthikul, Bell, Treyz, and Fung. Final Act.
21-22.
3
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner's combination of prior art references teaches or
suggests several limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 15, including:
extracting descriptive terms from the unstructured text
document using an ontology and heuristic rules, including
creating sentence fragments by detecting sentence boundaries,
removing non-descriptive words, identifying parts, symptoms,
and failure modes, and performing frequency analysis to
identify frequency of occurrence of particular symptoms with
particular failure modes in the sentence fragments,
and "creating rows of the failure modes, creating columns of the symptoms,
and placing correlation values in intersections of the rows and the columns,
where the correlation values are based on the frequency analysis." App. Br.
13-18; Reply Br. 2.
i\.Ni\L YSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 15, and 17
based on Shanahan, Suwatthikul, and Bell
With respect to independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner finds
Shanahan discloses a method for creating a fault model including most
claimed limitations, except for "a fault model for a hardware or software
system," "diagnostic information about the hardware or software system,"
"identifying parts, symptoms, and failure modes," "fault model," and
"including creating rows of the failure modes, creating columns of the
symptoms, and placing correlation values in intersections of the rows and
the columns, where the correlation values .... " Final Act. 2--4 (citing
Shanahan i1i1261, 304, 361-366). The Examiner relies on Suwatthikul and
4
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
Bell for disclosing these missing features to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Id. at 4--7 (citing Suwatthikul §§ 2.1, 3, and 3.2; and Bell
ii 28).
Appellants contend the Examiner's combination of Shanahan,
Suwatthikul, and Bell does not teach or suggest:
"extracting descriptive terms from the unstructured text
document using an ontology and heuristic rules, including
creating sentence fragments by detecting sentence boundaries,
removing non-descriptive words, identifying parts, symptoms,
and failure modes, and performing frequency analysis to identify
frequency of occurrence of particular symptoms with particular
failure modes in the sentence fragments,"
as recited in claims 1 and 15. App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). In addition,
Appellants argue: (1) neither Shanahan nor Suwatthikul teaches
"performing frequency analysis to identify frequency of occurrence of
particular symptoms with particular failure modes in the sentence
fragments" and (2) the combination of Shanahan, Suwatthikul, and Bell fails
to teach "placing correlation values in intersections of the rows and the
columns, where the correlation values are based on the frequency analysis,"
as recited in claims 1and15. App. Br. 13-18; Reply Br. 1-2. According to
Appellants, Shanahan's frequency analysis merely relates to counting the
number of occurrences of a term within a document, whereas Appellants'
claimed frequency analysis identifies "correlations of particular symptoms
with particular failure modes, occurring within individual sentence
fragments." Id.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and commensurate
with the scope of claims 1 and 15. Rather, we find the Examiner has
5
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Ans. 24--32. As such, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we
note, as the Examiner recognizes, claims 1 and 15 do not recite identifying
"correlations of particular symptoms with particular failure modes, occurring
within individual sentence fragments." Ans. 26. Instead, claims 1 and 15
recite "performing frequency analysis to identify frequency of occurrence of
particular symptoms with particular failure modes in the sentence
fragments."
In addition, we also note that "[obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Contrary to Appellants' arguments,
Shanahan's "frequency analysis" is not based on counting occurrences of
single words, but is based on "numerous words and determining
relationships between those words and classes" or topics of the documents,
including data from technical documents, as disclosed by Suwatthikul, to
determine the causes of failures associated with an automobile. Ans. 26-27
(citing Shanahan i-fi-1365-366). As recognized by the Examiner, the words
selected based on the frequency of occurrence can be characterized as
"symptoms" while the topics defined by these words can be characterized as
"failure modes." Final Act. 3 (citing Shanahan i1304; see also i1261).
Similarly, the use of frequency of occurrence in selecting words to define
classes or topics for the documents can be seen as a form of "correlation"
between selected words and topics or the claimed "symptoms" and "failure
6
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
modes." Id. In view of these teachings, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Shanahan and Suwatthikul teaches or suggests "performing
frequency analysis to identify frequency of occurrence of particular
symptoms with particular failure modes in the sentence fragments." Ans.
27-32.
The Examiner also relies on Suwatthikul to show a process in which
technical documents are converted to train a knowledge base, containing
possible causes, fault codes, failure modes, corrective actions, etc.
Suwatthikul' s automotive network diagnostic system monitors and
diagnoses vehicle faults, via a knowledge base, and is reproduced below
with added emphasis to show a process of training a knowledge base using
technical documents.
Figure 1. Proposed network diagnootic s~tem-
As shown in Figure 1 of Suwatthikul, an unstructured text processing
method, such as that taught by Shanahan, can be used to convert technical
documents to train its knowledge base in order to "diagnose/determine
faults." Final Act. 6. In addition to Suwatthikul, Bell is only relied upon to
7
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
show creation of rows and columns containing failure modes, symptoms,
and correlation values. Ans. 31-32; see also Bell i-f 28.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1 and 15 and their respective dependent
claims 2, 4---6, 9, and 17 based on Shanahan, Suwatthikul, and Bell
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 7 and 18
based on Shanahan, Suwatthikul, Bell and Fung
Dependent claims 7 and 18 further recite a wherein clause and
corresponding "means for merging phrases in the descriptive terms uses text
similarity techniques to assign a similarity score to a pair of descriptive
terms, compares the similarity score to a threshold value, and equates the
pair of descriptive terms if the similarity score exceeds the threshold value."
Appellants argue Fung does not teach "using text similarity
techniques to assign a similarity score to a pair of descriptive terms,
comparing the similarity score to a threshold value, and equating the pair of
descriptive terms if the similarity score exceeds the threshold value." App.
Br. 20. According to Appellants, Fung merely teaches the use of a thesaurus
to identify and add semantically similar words to expand the list of
keywords. Id. at 21.
The Examiner responds that Fung teaches expanding a keyword list
through the use of a thesaurus that includes semantically similar words. The
semantically similar words are selected only when their semantic similarity
score for each pair are above a certain minimal similarity threshold. Ans. 33
(citing Fung 11 :28--46). In other words, Fung teaches a word pair is
8
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
obtained when a similarity score for each word pair is above a certain
minimal threshold value. Id. (citing Fung 11 :40-48). We agree.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 7 and 18.
With respect to dependent claims 10, 11, 13, 14, and 20, Appellants
present no separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 22-26. For the same
reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 10, 11, 13, 14, and 20.
OTHER ISSUES
In the event of any further prosecution of this application, the
Examiner may wish to consider whether the following rejections are
applicable: (1) claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, i.e., an
abstract idea in light of the two-steps framework set out in the Supreme
Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt 'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347
(2014); and (2) claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th
paragraph, as being indefinite in light of the Federal Circuit en bane decision
in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(holding the term "'[m]odule' is a well-known nonce word that can operate
as a substitute for 'means' in the context of§ 112, para. 6," and in the
absence of a corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, is
considered indefinite under the 2nd paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112).
9
Appeal2014-006699
Application 13/045,310
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9--11, 13-15,
17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--
7, 9--11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20.
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
10