JP6480473B2 - An innovation expert system capable of semi-automatic generation and activation of legal grammar term chains in the claimed invention - Google Patents

Description

Glossary As used herein, the following phrases quoted underline have the following meanings:

a) “ Directly or in response to an association request by an IES user ” means that the IES user activates the function (requests the execution directly) or is prompted to activate the function by the IES ( It indirectly requests execution).

b) “ Several different LACs for any AST of CI / TT.O ” means that the presence of several LACs requires the definition of several different multimedia representations for LAC by IES users As well as, for example, that the AST has different disclosures for the inC that it handles and / or has one or more legal justifications for the disclosures that are generated by the AST itself, including different logic.

c) An answer provided by the IES for a query set by an IES user (for at least one aspect of at least one inC of a pending CI) is that the answer is all relevant legal and technical These two purposes only if the information is addressed and if this information is expressed and the CI presents all of the requirements specified in the SPL. Unlike the information provided by the non-matching classic claim structure, it is called “ complete and concise ”.

d) “ Question posed by an IES user unconsciously or unconsciously ” means that in the expression of a grammar term, the user raises this question specifically, intentionally, ie by aiming or accidentally. .

e) Different “ logic ” in AST refers to various types of ASTs expressing the point of argument, eg, whether inC is disclosed in the specification or inC in a set is subordinate To do.

f) “ All ASTs for a given CI and its FFFOLLIN ” means that any part of this CI's FSTP ^FFOLIN -test is covered by the AST. That is, CI's full FSTP ^FFOLLIN test, interpreted as a logical combination of basic logical statements, is divided into the set of ^BASTs (see γ) above.

g) Two LACs are “ non-redundant ” if the ASTs represented by the two LACs do not share BAST.

"LAC"
Any of the LAC's when invoked in response to a direct or indirect request by an IES user (and the IEC generates a LAC for a partial presence during the execution of the UIE.Y that defines the LAC) Instantiation is potentially, instantaneously, exactly, complete for one of a finite number of questions (expected in config mode) by answering in the multimedia representation (determined in config mode) In response to a concise response and to some degree of user controllable by the IES user regarding the representation of this answer and / or its logic. The occurrence of this question, raised intentionally or unintentionally by an IES user, is the reason for this instantiation activation. The problem addressed by this question is one of a finite number of aspects that test a given CI for the sufficiency of the requirements presented by each given FFOLLIN instantiation. The set of all LACs defined for a given FFOLLIN and its CI in config mode defines the overall usefulness of the CI provided by the IES so configured in this FFOLLIN.

"AST"
By instantiating AST, FSTP-test. o Access to certain parts of FSTP-DS that are potentially superior to certain parts of o and / or some FSTP-tests. A part of o can be connected. As a result, for a given CI and its FFOLLIN, all ^ASTs cover this CI's FSTP ^FFOLLIN- DS as a whole. Thus, the usefulness of AST instantiation is to provide access to a portion of the FSTP ^FFOLLIN -test represented by AST instantiation in a CI test to satisfy a given FFOLLIN.

"IC-UIE"
Any IC-UIE instantiation allows the construction and control of the representation of any part of any LAC.

"HI-UIE"
Any HI-UIE instantiation can determine the multimedia aspects and instructive representation of any LAC.

"KR-UIE"
Arbitrary LAC representations can be supported by any KR-UIE instantiation and by a suitable choice of AST logic.

Chapter 1 Introduction This patent application for the Substantive Patent Law (SPL, Note 1) is a continuation-in-part of US Patent Application No. 14 / 165,225.

  The Mayo decision in the US Supreme Court (refs. 1, 18, 19) claims that “Claimed Invention (CI)” is a new technical subject and is based on a model, “invention concept, inC”. Is required to describe the invention according to the present invention (Climed Invention: CI). Stimulated by this advanced IT research on the decision making in the testing of the CI under SPL, this is valid even if the CI does not require a model (11, 18, 19, 25, 36, 45, 71, 78).

  Models are standardized and used implicitly by SPL precedents, eg, the “ISO / OSI” model in communications, the “molecular binding” model in nanotechnology, and the “RNA / DNA” model in genetics. It is what

  The humanistic synonym of the model word is “paradigm”, and the scientific synonym is “reference system” such as “coordinate system”, for example.

  Performed by mathematical “axioms, theorems, proofs”, “natural laws” of physics, and “invention according to claims” of SPL in this specification, even if CI itself is not accurately understood As will be appreciated, the use of a model often allows an accurate description of the invention as claimed in the top-level claims.

  The invention according to the claims of this specification can be applied to all CIs based on a model.

  (References 10, 18, 19, 25, 46, 47) show that CI satisfies SPL only if CI passes the “FSTP-test”.

  Thus, the FSTP-test automatically (semi-) provides all legal Argument Chains (LACs) whose CI satisfies the SPL.

  This makes it much easier for patent practitioners to make decisions about testing CI under SPL, especially when CI is based on a model.

  SPL theory is always finite first order logic (FFOL).

SPL related functionalities of CI only if all (legally non-redundant) LACs have “User Interface Entity (UIE)” that allows users to access CIs that meet SPL CI alias TT., Which stores all of the non-functional properties. A system based on zero PTR ^SPL- DS (references 6 and 7) is called an “Innovation Expert System (IES)”.

  The IES utilizes its own PTR-DS that embodies all “arguable subtests” (ASTs) with all the results of its CI's FSTP-tests. The AST is a blueprint for all CIs of this CI.

  Automatic LAC generation according to the present invention is not limited to testing CIs under SPL, as described in Chapter 2.

The IES UIE is separated and used in a synchronized configuration / real time mode. Y, Y = 1, 2,. . . , Is composed. Each UIE. Y has a knowledge representation “KR-UIE.Y”, a human interaction “HI-UIE.Y”, and an interaction control “IC-UIE.Y” entity.

The IES or its user initiates an “interaction” between them.

  In config mode, the interaction is performed by the user via the UIE. It produces or modifies at least one of the three components cited with Y.

  In real-time mode, the interaction is IC-UIE. Y, and HI-UIE. Bring up the expression of Y.

  In both modes, this interaction is KR-UIE. Y is used. KR-UIE. Y uses the knowledge stored in the PTR-DS (reference documents 11 and 25) in order.

  UIE. Y may be further divided into (potentially nested) “UIE.Y steps”. UIE. By activating Y, at least one of these steps is partially performed.

  LAC. Z, Z = 1, 2,. . . , At least one partial UIE. Expressed by executing Y.

  AST. X, X = 1, 2,. . . , Is at least one KR-UIE. Y, each of which is at least one LAC. Converted to Z.

  AST. X indicates that the user can use these IC-UIE. In the config mode that can be switched by calling Y, it is possible to customize its own IC-UIE. Y at least one HI-UIE. Used in at least one “logical expression” associated with Y.

  That is, in the configuration mode of IES, any AST is (semi-) automatically one or more LAC. Conversion to Zs is possible. In response to requests from judges, examiners, lawyers, inventors, etc., AST's LAC in various logical expressions is UIE. Ys converts to a multimedia representation.

  In the real-time mode, the user performs AST. LAC. Converted from X. In order to make the Z side stand out, AST. X of these UIE. Switch between Y.

  FIG. 1 shows a semi-automatically generated / customized UIE.1 / 1/2/3 configuration mode defined by the IES user. UIE. Of step 1a (reference 1) / 1b (references 1, 2) / 1c (references 1, 2, 3). AST.1 converted to 3 LACa / b / c by 1a / 1b / 1c. 1 and their 6 <HI-UIE. Y, KR-UIE. Y, IC-UIE. Y> is shown.

  FIG. 1 again, based entirely on six steps (lines), their UIE. Three more powerful LACs with 1d / 1e / 1f. It shows that it has two logical expressions that lead to d / e / f.

  The latter part of Chapter 2 provides further information regarding Figure 1/2.

Chapter 2 Generation of all LACs for CI testing under any FFOLLIN (Note 1, 2)

  This patent application utilizes scientific insights in the FSTP project, where a list of references is presented in the “Appendix”, citing publications.

  These are CI / TT.M tested under SPL. How all 0 ACTs (all non-identical) are equivalent to LACs that are automatically activated in real-time mode of IES using IES in config mode, as explained in Chapter 1 Indicates whether it is converted semi-automatically.

  The role of FFOLIN is shown in the following α) to ζ).

  In order to convey the role of IES in config mode, the following bullet identifies the technical features of IES that allow the user to configure alias calibration that customizes IES.

  Thus, one or several users may use IES simultaneously in config mode and / or real-time mode, and thus communicate with each other directly or indirectly.

  Understanding the operation of IES in real-time mode comes directly from understanding the config mode.

  The features described above are often added redundantly as already described above and / or described in these documents.

  Chapter 3 defines the meaning of CI inC and the entire claim, if not previously obvious from the definition of inC, and explains Chapter 2 to provide a basis for interpreting these meanings. Use.

  These bullets disclose the scope of this CI.

  -According to reference 25, the CI fulfills the SPL only if it passes the FSTP-test. And (on each subset S, over the finite set of all BED-inCs of subset S of subset S, TT.0). m, 2 ≦ m ≦ 10, passes through all FSTP-tests on this set. n, 1 ≦ n ≦ m. The reverse of this relationship clearly does not require retention.

  • A complete FSTP-test is the 11 issues that are embodied by the SPL in US Code Vol. 35, through the CI's BED-inC mirror predicate for CI under the SPL test, and the A program that evaluates the entire FFOL representation that models logic (see below). The combination of BED-inC mirror predicates models the characteristics of CI elements. These equivalents in the prior art TT may or may not exist as defined by the FSTP-test user (and ascertained by one skilled in the art).

  Any AST is a lexically and syntactically correct “sentence” alias FFOL term that is within the scope of this entire FFOL expression. Thus, there is at most a finite number of ASTs for any CI, and the user / person skilled in the art will generate a PTR− when generating an AST where the meaning of the CI is obvious for any AST (assumed to be correct herein). (Excluding the above-mentioned characteristics and relations between characteristics input to DS).

  There are at most a finite number of ASTs (usually hundreds) that are PTR dependent. All these ASTs can be performed on a finite number of PTR-dependent BED-in-C subsets. All these ASTs, their own BASTA (see below), are all LAC blueprints. Although there are different representations of any AST for IES users, such as different LACs, there are no other (legally non-redundant) LACs.

  Any AST. (Converted to LAC.Z) Any UIE.X for X. Y is the initial UIE. Y or an existing defined UIE for checking or changing the result of the previous input. Y, the startup parameter, LAC. Z of several UIE. Interaction between invocations of the expression of Y, or other LAC. Depending on the interaction with the representation of Z, in config mode, launch the “UIE-stub” provided by the introduction of any IES and put this UIE. It is generated by the IES user by handing over Y. Therefore, any UIE. Y may consist of one or several series of “UIE steps, UIES” by the user, so that any UIES can also be made by the user by one or several series of the aforementioned steps. May be configured ("nested UIE.Y"). Therefore, any UIE. Y may consist of one or several series of “UIE steps, UIES” by the user, so that any UIES can also be made by the user by one or several series of the aforementioned steps. May be configured ("nested UIE.Y"). Depending on the specific IES installation and / or configuration, except for automatic ones, KR- / HI- / IC-UIE. Y or KR- / HI- / IC-UIES. Depending on the function of each of the three Y, any UIE. Y and UIES. Y is specified by the user.

  The three components of the UIE mentioned are not detailed in this patent application, but are largely generated automatically by the IES, or interactively generated by the user guided by the IES, and basically the same or similar Things, that is, those that are common in principle.

  Therefore, the object of the claimed invention expressed herein is that all LAC.s only describe the classical claim structure for a given CI. Z is not limited to providing Z (LAC.Z described above only indicates that CI has an opportunity to satisfy SPL), but not all LAC. Z is provided.

  In config mode, all PTR-DSs are automatically or semi-automatically / interactively split into all ASTs, as deemed reasonable by IES users, and a potentially arbitrary one of a lot of AST logic However, after the equivalent LAC multimedia representation and user interaction functions (shown in FIG. 1/2 and below α) to ζ) have also been split, these ASTs or LACs (for example, Automatically (by the IES acoustic word spotter) and / or (semi) automatically by the IES user (see steps α) to ζ) below). Thus, the execution has a specific item that communicates with the user, eg, regarding any kind of problem to manage. The relevant conventional techniques, for example from the IVR system and their audio pattern spotting and matching functions, show how the instantaneously executed dialog is triggered in the real-time LAC so as to generate the appropriate pattern. In principle, you can know whether (semi) automatic recognition is performed. Here, the LAC recognition and activation processes in the real-time mode described above, for example, use a graphical and / or acoustic pattern embodied by an associated multimedia thesaurus structure based on the “AST pattern”. And may be substantially supported by IES calibration, which hints at each of these processes.

  • The complete FSTP-test of CI that meets the SPL in the 35 US Code is the 10 FSTP-tests in FIG. o, 1 ≦ o ≦ 10. This test is based on the CI “set of all claim interpretations, SoI” selected in (b) / (c), ie all TT. Performed on zero. If it is disclosed by the specification of a patent (application), several interpretations are possible by CI (references 71, 78). The term / idea “technical teaching 0, TT.0” (references 6, 7, 11) represents one of them (references 71, 78). That is, TT. 0 is an element of “interpretation set, SoI” of CI.

  However, these TT. There are various execution sequences of FSTP-tests for each of the zeros. 10 FSTP-tests. While the initialization sequence of o must be that of their natural number index, they may be performed thoroughly or in duplicate. That is, in the latter case, any FSTP-test. m, only CI of inC already confirmed by ∀m <n, any FSTP-test of this CI. n checks are maintained.

  • Advanced IT, such as the output to the latter IES user, the input and commands given to the IES by the IES user are defined here by the alphabet ( Vocabulary), syntax, semantics and pragmatics must have some before being given, and these are under the rules pre-given by the IES and controlled by the IES user Must be defined during the execution of the FSTP-test of the claimed invention by the IES.

  The term “legal grammar chain, LAC” / ideology represents what is commonly understood by any person skilled in the art of SPL. The broad meaning is not limited in other ways. The index “Z” is a specific LAC. Identify Z, and more specifically identify Z instantiations of “type LAC” (from a programming language perspective). “AST” / “AST.X”, “UIE” / “UIE.Y”. . . The same applies to the above.

  The TT. Of the CI to be tested to satisfy the SPL given by the IES The above UIE-stub on PTR-DS representing 0 is always available to IES users (except when locked by the user). As explained above, IES users use the UIE stub to define a wide range of UIE instantiations that make up the UIE between IES and IES users to customize CI SPL tests for IES users. May be. This includes promoting the use of functions provided by the IES for this test.

  ・ UIE. Whether Y should be generated / integrated / modified or executed is UIE. It is determined by the IES mode when Y is started. Thus, this mode may be set by the user (e.g., one that performs this activation or others) or IES and / or UIE. Y exists and may be set at any time of the execution function to be activated. Thus, conflicts may occur and IES must be introduced and resolved to resolve automatically or interactively with IES users.

  Any launch may reference only one step in the UIE instantiation.

  • The significance of human dialogue, ie its semantics, is currently transparent to the IES and potentially to a very simple AST, unless automatically derived from the pending AST by the IES Arise.

  The usefulness of the CIs disclosed herein (ie, each IES in the CI control method) may have some points in the PTR-DS or TT. In response to the most recent activation of the FSTP test representing 0, for example, the CI TT. It should be understood under the HI-UIE capability of automatic instant information representation by one or several different LACs for any AST of zero.

  In particular, the claimed invention was invented to allow LAC to be expressed automatically or interactively in response to a given problem, and this response is as if it had been subjected to an SPL test. TT. It seems as if given by a person with all knowledge about zero.

  For this purpose, this response can be used in real time or on the screen somehow synchronously by the IES (by letting a human speak and present what is used graphically to support its representation. By any other media, which would normally be expressed when using IES real-time mode). To accomplish this, the IES first inputs fragments of grammatical terms that the user intends to represent later in his / her own way, acoustically and / or graphically, and these fragments are then represented in full Combined with what is considered a chain of grammatical terms, this grammar term can be automatically regenerated at the end. Such responses to viewers of this LAC (to questions or others who have previously entered the claimed invention as queries) can be personal and potential multi-media as smart multimedia responses (IMRs). Appears as media announcement / information. The “user anthropomorphism” of the IMR subsystem behavior of the claimed invention is a complex process in which IES users and IES collaborate by alternatively mentioning or responding by immediately responding to interrupted questions. Representing a LAC, such that under the control of an IES user, such a quick response is IC-UIE. Y is also configured to be an intervening and / or attached description. Various such dialogs are described in Chapters 3 and 4.

  To achieve this result, the IES automatically or interactively performs a number of steps of all such processes, as will be described below in α) to ζ). For example, when invoked directly or indirectly by an IES user (ie, by an IES request), the IES is basically:

  α) Recognize which “high-level user interaction” occurs due to / for activation, due to the nature of the FFOL in question, where at most a finite number of such user interactions are required by the IES user.

  β) Deriving from the FSTP-DS what technical and / or legal matters are necessary for this dialogue.

  γ) Depending on which “basic AST grammar term, BASTA (basic AST argument)” covers, depending on the problem, ie the FFOL property of the FSTP-test, any TT. There is a finite number of BASTs for 0 and each TT. 0-independent BASTA is given by IES, TT. A BASTA that depends on 0 is entered into the IES by the IES user under immediate guidance controlled by the PTR-DS prior to the use of the IES, as described in α) to ζ).

  δ) Due to the FFOL nature of the problem in which any sequence is correct and useful for reconsideration, several “BASTAs” are a single complete sequence of “low-level answers” to these questions from these BASTAs. Compile the sequence “SoBASTA” and let the KR-UIE instantiation express this SoBASTA.

  e) Multimedia to future (in config mode) or real (in real-time) I / O devices that this low-level SoBASTA is one or several specific but logically equivalent to each other and SoBASTA Convert to a sequence of outputs and have the same number of HI-UIE instantiations represent these future / real outputs. This is potentially supported by the KR-UIE alias SoBASTA. Each such instantiation provides a specific basis for one or several of the high-level user interaction sequences activated above and ζ) performed.

  ζ) For any ε) HI-UIE instantiation, in the future (in the case of config mode) or in reality (in the case of real-time mode), on which I / O device for which event, part of the HI-UIE instantiation Or how to output the other one of these ε) HI-UIE instantiations, and for this HI-UIE instantiation, these specific IC-UIEs Lets the future / current interaction control be expressed, thereby linking the IES user's command with not only a part of the HI-UIE instantiation of ε), but also any subsequent part necessary for execution from the KR-UIE.

  Steps α) to ζ) and especially some comments on this CI logic are useful.

  Any step requires some interactive input from the IES user or control by the IES user, or is performed fully automatically.

  These steps are, for example, i) preliminary / calibration / config mode, ii) response test mode, iii) “one-way” response mode, iv) two-way, alias “interactive” response mode, v) some "Integrated" response mode,. . . It is different when it is started in different modes.

  The BASTA (= basic AST grammar term) in step γ) represents a set of basic building blocks that are completely (usually neither unique nor non-redundant), finite FSTP-tests decomposed. In any BASTA, the term “basic” refers to a single actual alias “technology” and / or 10 FSTP-tests. o represents a legal problem (eg, a finite number of the above-mentioned details, evaluations, several relationships of inC, or pending FSTP test.o). The term “grammar term” indicates that BASTA is converted into a basic building block of LAC.

  While the CI embodiment of this patent application dealing with steps α) to ζ) uses the functions defined for CI in a very sophisticated way, nonetheless, this introduction is for those skilled in the art It can be easily realized. This can always be achieved by retaining more for the simpler CI embodiment and appropriately limiting the I / O flexibility of the previously described embodiment.

  In addition to steps α) to ζ), embodiments of the claimed invention may provide a “prototype” of all user interactions and the modes they provide. This can be done by repeating a few sentences, or repeating some sentences especially slowly, skipping insignificant details momentarily, prompting the user to continue, Ask for confirmation of understanding. . . It is the same as the macro for the repeated part as usual when starting them.

  • The LAC may also be represented by a default configuration with user interaction specific to the application domain model. These prototype dialogs allow users to enter / define / construct specific UIE instantiations for personalization of LAC to match the specificity of real PTR-DS under IES and / or testing Usually, however, the functionalization of these prototypes is not yet what IES users want to use ideally.

  This patent application does not use the special features of SPL * 1 or its FSTP-test anywhere. That is, SPL is too narrow to specify this. The next paragraph will clarify this and determine the scope of the CI of this patent application.

  From a programming language perspective, SPL, “Substantial Copyright Law, SCL”, etc., is considered to be the scope of “indicative” type declarations whose definition commonality is “finite FOL legal norm, FFOLLN”. May be. Thus, any of the above-mentioned types of declarations is called FFOLLN and is defined by a finite set to be satisfied by any instantiation of this directive type, ie by any subject that satisfies it.

Here, an arbitrary instantiation of FFOLLN is generated by the subject matter of the FFOL CI, for example, by a finite set of BED ^SCL- inC generated for this CI (reference 71). Thus, this instantiation, which is the subject matter defined by the CI of this FFOLLN, is referred to as “Finite FOL Legal Invention Code, FFCOLLIN”.

In view of this, the scope of this patent application is considered to actually include any IES ^FFOLIN determined by careful analysis of the claims claiming this CI. Thus, from the above discussion of programming languages (generalized in the discussion of refs. 10, 18, 19, 25, and mathematically reviewed in ref. 73, linguistically independent of programming languages and legal terms. The definition is as follows: Test scope CI of the present patent application, which generates the necessity and sufficiency to meet the requirements given strong "to the same extent, TC.NaS.MR (t est of a c reation n ecessary a nd s ufficient for its m eeting a given r equirement) ”.

Being “just as powerful” means that this CI allows any FFOLLIN to be customized / constructed, and (as described above) one or several accurate and complete LACs whose representation is controlled by the IES user. This makes it possible to construct an ^{IPS FFOLLIN} that is knowledgeable enough to respond immediately.

This generalization also has a clear impact on the FSTP ^SPL -test that determines the PTR ^SPL- DS, meaning that the FSTP ^TCNaSMR -test determines the PTR ^TCNaSMR- DS. ^Writing “FSTP ^{FFALLN -test} ” and “PTR ^{FFROLLN -DS} ” is not very specific, but means the same thing. This generalization may be extended to FFALLN's dependence on infinite parameters such as time. That is, the CI of this patent application, as already clearly shown in Chapter 1, is much broader than that which has been repeatedly and clearly described for typical purposes, ie, SPL in Volume 35 of the United States Code. It has an application area, that is, the entire FFOL × N area. x means not only “law” but also any private “instruction”.

• ^CI defined by several FFOLLIN generation aliases “Technical Teaching. 0, TT. 0 ^FFOLLIN ” (which has element properties that can be described in detail by combining mirror predicates of this TT. 0 BED ^FFOLLIN -inC) IES ^{FVOLLIN (} defined as ^Full knowledge of FFOLLIN satisfiability of 0 ^FFOLLIN is included in claim 16. For example, the IES ^SPL defined by the CI ^SPL 's BED ^SPL- inC and FSTP ^SPL -test is all-knowing about the SPL sufficiency of this CI ^SPL .

  -Without treating this reasoning scientifically, some very interesting conclusions are possible that show the overall irrationality of attempts to demonstrate model-based CI. That is,

O (as claimed in claims 16-30) to introduce IES ^FFOLN (SPL of volume 35 of the United States Code is exactly FFOLLN), so that the specific FFOLN and FSTP ^FFOLN -tests (ie it is FFOLN) Is not necessary) and there is no CI ^FVOLLN . The “abstract” IES ^FFOLN so introduced by PTR ^FFOLLIN- DS of CI ^FFOLLIN (specific FFOLLN, specific CI ^FFOLLIN and specific FSTP required for the construction of PTR ^FFOLLIN- DS Calibrating (based on ^FFOLLN- test) ^{results in} an all-know IES ^FFOLLIN with respect to the FFROLLN sufficiency of the CI ^FFOLLIN .

○ application area of CI disclosed by this patent application (one of them, "United States Code region of Vol. 35 of SPL") as one of the (all "FFOLLN ^{region"), FSTP FFOLLN} - test FFOL It cannot be defined without being based on CI. That is, any FFOL CI from FFOLLN generates a specific composite metric for any precedent by its FSTP ^FFOLLIN -test, as empirical techniques by those of ordinary skill in this FFOLN domain.

  O It was not necessary in practice with classical CI technology that any CI recognizes its own metric generation. Thus, it is the same that intuition always implies (although no one understands before FSTP technology). There is no intuition for state-of-the-art CI technologies based on models, so scientific research on testing to meet FFALLN is indispensable (Ref. 79).

  As used herein, the phrases quoted below and underlined have the following meanings.

a) “ Directly or in response to an association request by an IES user ” means that the IES user activates the function (requests the execution directly) or is prompted to activate the function by the IES ( It indirectly requests execution).

b) “ Several different LACs for any AST of CI / TT.O ” means that the presence of several LACs requires the definition of several different multimedia representations for LAC by IES users As well as, for example, that the AST has different disclosures for the inCs handled and / or that it is generated by the AST itself that includes different reasoning methods that have one or more legal justifications for the disclosure.

c) An answer provided by the IES for a query set by an IES user (for at least one aspect of at least one inC of a pending CI) is that the answer is all relevant legal and technical These two purposes only if the information is addressed and if this information is expressed and the CI presents all of the requirements specified in the SPL. Unlike the information provided by the non-matching classic claim structure, it is called “ complete and concise ”.

d) “ Question posed by an IES user unconsciously or unconsciously ” means that in the expression of a grammar term, the user raises this question specifically, intentionally, ie by aiming or accidentally. .

e) Different “ logic ” in AST refers to various types of ASTs expressing the point of argument, eg, whether inC is disclosed in the specification or inC in a set is subordinate To do.

f) “ All ASTs for a given CI and its FFFOLLIN ” means that any part of this CI's FSTP ^FFOLIN -test is covered by the AST. That is, CI's full FSTP ^FFOLLIN test, interpreted as a logical combination of basic logical statements, is divided into the set of ^BASTs (see γ) described above.

g) Two LACs are “ non-redundant ” if the ASTs represented by the two LACs do not share BAST.

Chapter 3 CI inC and Significance of Claim Terms Independent claims (invented claims), CI (for simplicity, plurals are ignored without loss of generality) BED-) inC, which consists of instantiations of “KR-UIE”, “HI-UIE”, “IC-UIE”, “AST” and “LAC”. Their significance is mainly explained in Chapter 1 and is exemplified throughout the specification of this patent application, which describes their usefulness in a glossary style.

  The five inCs refer to information that the IES (semi) automatically generates and uses (sometimes five inCs are treated to contain information), as defined in detail herein. Thus, the claims contribute to the disclosure / description of this CI inventive concept, particularly the incremental contribution to the usefulness of each CI. Some of the subordinate CIs are based on further disclosures of inC not detailed here.

  All five inC incremental utilities (Refs. 18, 19) and their association with the SPL in Volume 35 of the United States Code need to be instantly proven in real-time mode alone and in config mode And additional potential for more detailed utility studies. The incremental usefulness of these five inCs (in real-time mode) is not a way to control it and allow a similar definition, but rather a way of totally invisible / invisible methods of the five inCs. As defined by the IES that contains at least one instantiation or can generate it as well as launching instantaneously, it is defined as:

・ LAC is as follows.
Any of the LAC's when invoked in response to a direct or indirect request by an IES user (and the IEC generates a LAC for a partial presence during the execution of the UIE.Y that defines the LAC) Instantiation is potentially, instantaneously, exactly, complete for one of a finite number of questions (expected in config mode) by answering in the multimedia representation (determined in config mode) In response to a concise response and to some degree of user controllable by the IES user regarding the representation of this answer and / or its logic. The occurrence of this question, raised intentionally or unintentionally by an IES user, is the reason for this instantiation activation. The problem addressed by this question is
It is one of a finite number of aspects that test a given CI for the sufficiency of requirements presented by each instantiation of a given FFOLLIN.
The set of all LACs defined for a given FFOLLIN and its CI in config mode defines the overall usefulness of the CI provided by the IES so configured in this FFOLLIN.

・ AST is as follows.
By instantiating AST, FSTP-test. o Access to certain parts of FSTP-DS that are potentially superior to certain parts of o and / or some FSTP-tests. A part of o can be connected. As a result, for a given CI and its FFOLLIN, all ^ASTs cover this CI's FSTP ^FFOLLIN- DS as a whole. Thus, the usefulness of AST instantiation is to provide access to a portion of the FSTP ^FFOLLIN -test represented by AST instantiation in a CI test to satisfy a given FFOLLIN.

・ IC-UIE is as follows.
Any IC-UIE instantiation allows the construction and control of the representation of any part of any LAC.

・ HI-UIE is as follows.
Any HI-UIE instantiation can determine the multimedia aspects and instructive representation of any LAC.

・ KR-UIE is as follows.
Arbitrary LAC representations can be supported by any KR-UIE instantiation and by a suitable choice of AST logic.

  The (non-) functional meaning of the claim representation recognizing how the person skilled in the art conforms to the CI remains unchanged. Those skilled in the art are those skilled in the art of IT system designers who are also familiar with the SPL discussed in refs. 71, 78 and the Supreme Court's KSR / Bilski / Mayo / Myriad judgment. The wording of the fifteenth method claim also applies to the subsequent system claim.

  Finally, some definitions / explanations / comments about the claims are necessary and useful.

Claim 1
Bold italic acronyms represent sets. In the LAC definition, the term “proving” is sometimes to be replaced by the term “inferring” or “asserting”. Without loss of generality, the PTR-DS given this explanation is a single TT. It may be assumed to have only zero.

  The term “automatically recognize” means that when trying to launch another user interaction, the IES always checks first whether the user's request is outstanding. If so, process this request; if not, check whether to prompt the user to request user interaction, and if so, make this prompt.

Claim 7
From the underlying patent application, a method for completing a partial PTR-DS is known. From footnote 2, this also applies to each FFOLLN, FFOLLIN.

Claim 9
In order to be able to perform this check, this CI accordingly limits the capabilities of the description method.

Chapter 4 The CI of this patent application meets the 35 SPL of the United States Code.
According to References 11 and 25, the claimed invention includes ten FSTP test. Satisfy Article 101/102/103/112 of 35 US Code to pass all o. That is, it passes through:

FSTP test 1
Technically, the claimed invention consists of at least five or more BED-crC cited at the beginning of Chapter 3, as in claims 1 and 16 and their dependent claims. Each of the crCs contributes to increasing the usefulness of the IES in creating / customizing / launching LACs. Dividing them into components is obsolete, ie the execution of FSTP test 1 is self-evident.

FSTP test 2
These five BED-crCs are legally disclosed by Chapters 1-4. That is, BED-inC. And the single invention FSTP-test as claimed uses a set of these five inCs.

FSTP test 3
None of the claims has a “means plus function” representation.

FSTP test 4
The disclosure of five BED-crCs and hence CIs in Chapters 1-4 is possible.

FSTP test 5
The five BED-inCs are clearly independent.

FSTP test 6
The five BED-inCs are not equivalent to those skilled in the art, as there is no prior art and those skilled in the art.

FSTP test 7
The claimed invention, whose overall utility is shown in Chapter 1, is explained in detail in Chapters 2-4 by its five inCs (as will be recognized at the beginning of Chapter 3). Thus, if the NAIO test is passed and one of these five inCs is abandoned, the claimed invention no longer has a particular utility. Therefore, the invention according to any claim is not only an abstract idea.

FSTP test 8
The claimed invention is clearly not just a natural phenomenon. The reverse is true, and none of the five InCs describes a natural phenomenon.

FSTP test 9
The claimed invention is clearly new and is unobvious (Note 4).

FSTP test 10
Since none of the five InCs is self-evident, the claimed invention is not idempotent.

  Thus, as described above, the claimed invention meets the SPL of 35 US Code.

  Finally, by passing all 10 FSTP tests, it is worth noting that this CI also passed 16 tests, as shown in FIG. In the classic claim structure, only six tests are performed, as described in reference 25. To introduce this idea into the context of the Mayo case, if the classical claim structure is considered a useful invention for determining whether the claimed invention meets the SPL of the United States As in the Bilski / Mayo case, it is merely a “mere abstract idea” of the structure of the claims. The classical claim structure strangely does not make it useful. Indeed, it is more misleading than leading to the claim structure required by the Mayo case, which is complete, conforms to 35 US law, and is required.

Other aspects, objects, effects and features of the present invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description of the preferred embodiments. This description is given without limiting the examples and with reference to the accompanying drawings separately from FIGS. 1 and 2 described above.
Semi-automatically generated / customized in config mode defined by IES user, 1/2/3 continuous UIE. UIe.1a / 1b / 1c step. AST.1 converted to 3 LACa / b / c by 1a / 1b / 1c. 1 and their 6 <HI-UIE. Y, KR-UIE. Y, IC-UIE. Y> is shown. AST. 1 again, based entirely on six steps (lines), their UIE. Three more powerful LACs with 1d / 1e / 1f. It shows that it has two logical expressions that lead to d / e / f. 10 FSTP-tests. Show the FSTP-test consisting of o. Fig. 3 shows a composite US Code SPL expressed in a basic FSTP test.

Attached document to the specification Reference list

[Reference 1]
S. Schindler: “US Highest Courts 'Patent Precedents in Mayo / Myriad / CLS / Ultramercial / LBC:' Inventive Concepts 'Accepted-Abstract Ideas' Next Patenting Emerging Tech. Inventions Now without Intricacies” ^*
[Reference 2]
“Advanced IT” includes, for example, AI, semantics, KR, DL, NL,. . IT research areas are shown.
[Reference 3]
R. Brachmann, H. Levesque “Knowledge Representation & Reasoning”, Elsevier, 2004
[Reference 4]
“The Description Logic Handbook”, Cambridge UP, 2010
[Reference 5]
S. Schindler: “Math. Model. Substantive Patent Law (SPL) Top-Down vs. BottomUp”, Yokohama, JURISIN 2013 ^*
[Reference 6]
SSBG pat. Appl .: “THE FSTP EXPERT SYSTEM” ^*
[Reference 7]
SSBG pat. Appl .: “AN INNOVATION EXPERT SYS., IES, & ITS DATA STRUC., PTR-DS” ^*
[Reference 8]
J. Schulze: “TECHNICAL REPORT # 1.V1 ON THE '882 PTR AND THE UI OF THE IES PROTO-TYPE”, in prep.
[Reference 9]
S. Schindler: “Patent Business-Before Shake-up”, 2013 ^*
[Reference 10]
SSBG's AB to CAFC in LBC, 2013 ^*
[Reference 11]
SSBG pat. Appl .: “INV. CONC. ENABL. SEMI-AUTOM. PATENT TESTS” ^*
[Reference 12]
C. Correa: “Res. Handbook on Protection of IP under WTO Rules”, EE, 2010.
[Reference 13]
N. Klunker: "Harmonisierungsbestr. Im mat. Patentrecht", MPI, Muchen, 2010.
[Reference 14]
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.1],” ^*
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.2],” ^*
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.3],” ^* )
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.4],” ^*
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.5],” ^*
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.6],” ^*
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.7],” ^*
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.8],” ^*
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.9],” ^*
[Reference 15]
S. Schindler: “KR Support for SPL Precedents”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014 ^* .
[Reference 16]
J. Daily, S. Kieff: “Anything under the Sun Made by Humans SPL Doctrine as Endogenous Institutions for Commercial Innovation”, Stanford and GWU ^*
[Reference 17]
U.S. Federal Circuit Court, En ban Hearing in LBC, 12.9.13.
[Reference 18]
SSBG AB to the Supreme Court in CLS, 07.10.2013 ^*
[Reference 19]
SSBG AB to the Supreme Court in WildTangent, 23.09.2013 ^*
[Reference 20]
US Patent Office, “Intell. Prop. And the US Economy: INDUSTR. IN FOCUS”, 2012 ^*
[Reference 21]
K. O'Malley: Keynote Address, IPO, 2013 ^*
[Reference 22]
S. Schindler, “The View of an Inventor at the Grace Period”, Kiev, 2013 ^*
[Reference 23]
S. Schindler, “The IES and its In-C Enabled SPL Tests”, Munich, 2013 ^*
[Reference 24]
S. Schindler, “Two Fundamental Theorems of 'Math. Innovation Science'”, Hong Kong, ECM-2013 ^*
[Reference 25]
S. Schindler, A. Paschke, S. Ramakrishna, “Form. Legal Reason. That an Invention Sat. SPL”, Bologna, JURIX-2013 ^*
[Reference 26]
SSBG AB to the Supreme Court in Bilski, 6.8.2009 ^*
[Reference 27]
T. Bench-Capon, F. Coenen: “Isomorphism. And Legal Knowl. Based Systems”, AI & Law, 1992 ^*
[Reference 28]
N. Fuchs, R. Schwitter. "Attempt to Controlled English", 1996.
[Reference 29]
A. Paschke: “Rules and Logic Programming in the Web”. 7. ISS, Galway, 2011.
[Reference 30]
K. Ashley, V. Walker, “From Information Retrieval to Arg. Retrieval for Legal Cases: ..…”, Bologna, JURIX-2013 ^*
[Reference 31]
Hearing in Oracle vs. Google, “As to Copyrightability of the Java® Platform”, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 6.12.2013.
[Reference 32]
S. Schindler, “A KR Based Innovation Expert System (IES) for US SPL Precedents”, Phuket, ICIM-2014 ^*
[Reference 33]
S. Schindler, “Status Report about the FSTP Prototype”, Hyderabat, GIPC-2014.
[Reference 34]
S. Schindler, “Status Report about the FSTP Prototype”, Moscow, LESI, 2014.
[Reference 35]
S. Schindler, “Substantive Trademark Law STL), Substantive Copyright Law (SCL), and SPL -STL Tests Are True SCL Subtests, and SCL Tests Are True SPL Subtests”, in prep.
[Reference 36]
S. Schindler, “Boon and Bane of Inventive Concepts and Refined Claim Construction in the Supreme Court's New Patent Precedents”, Hawaii, IAM-2014 ^* )
[Reference 37]
D.-M. Bey, C. Cotropia, "The Unreasonableness of the BRI Standard", AIPLA, 2009 ^* )
[Reference 38]
Transcript of the Hearing in TELES vs. CISCO / US Patent Office, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 8.1.2014 ^* )
[Reference 39]
Transcript of the en banc Hearing in CLS vs. ALICE, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 8.2.2013 ^* )
[Reference 40]
SSBG's Brief to the CAFC in case '453 ^*
[Reference 41]
SSBG's Brief to the CAFC in case '902 ^*
[Reference 42]
SSBG Amikas Brief to US Federal Circuit Court of Appeal in CLS, 06.12.2012 ^*
[Reference 43]
SSBG pat. Appl. "An IES Capable of Semi-Autom. Generating / Invoking All Legal Argument Chains (LACs) in the SPL Test of a Claimed Invention (CI), as Enabled by Its Inventive Concepts (inCs)", ^*
[Reference 44]
R. Rader, Panel Discussion "Patent on Life Sciences", Berlin, 28.11.2012
[Reference 45]
SSBG's AB to the Supreme Court as to the CII Question, Jan. 28, 2014 ^*
[Reference 46]
S. Schindler: "Autom. Deriv. Of Leg. Arg. Chains (LACs) from Arguable Subtests (ASTs) of a Claimed Invention's Test for Satisfying. SPL", University of Warsaw, 24.05.2014 ^*
[Reference 47]
S. Schindler: "Auto. Gen. of All ASTs for an Inv. 'S SPL Test", subm. For public. ^*
[Reference 48]
US Patent Office / MPEP, “2012 ... Proc. For Subj. Matter Eligibility ... of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature”, 2012 ^*
[Reference 49]
US Patent Office / MPEP, Guidelines 35 USC 112 (2), Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27; MPEP 2171, Rev. 9, Aug. 2012 ^*
[Reference 50]
NAUTILUS v. BIOSIG, PFC, 2013 ^*
[Reference 51]
BIOSIG, Respondent, 2013 ^*
[Reference 52]
Public Knowledge et al., AB, 2014 ^*
[Reference 53]
Amazon et al., AB, 2014 ^*
[Reference 54]
White House, FACT SHEET-... the President's Call to Strength. Our Patent System and Foster Innovation, 2014 ^*
[Reference 55]
See US Patent Office homepage
[Reference 56]
See the website of the American Intellectual Property Owners Association
[Reference 57]
M. Adelman, R. Rader, J. Thomas: "Cases and Materials on Patent Law", West AP, 2009.
[Reference 58]
SSBG's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its (In) Definiteness Questions, March 3, 2014 ^*
[Reference 59]
SSBG pat. Appl. "A Patent Interpretations and inCs Minded UI of an IES"
[Reference 60]
S. Schindler: "A Patent Interpretation (s) and an inCs Minded UI of an IES", in preparation, 2014.
[Reference 61]
H. Wegner: "Indefiniteness, the Sleeping Giant in Patent Law", www.laipla.net/ hal-wegners-top-ten-patent-cases /
[Reference 62]
US Federal Circuit Appeals in Case Number 12-1513, US Patent Application 7,145,902 Reexamination Number 95,001,001, February 21, 2014 ^*
US Federal Circuit Appeals in Case Number 12-1297, US Patent Application 6,954,453, Reexamination Number 90 / 010,017, April 4, 2014 ^*
[Reference 63]
[63] B. Wegner, S. Schindler: "A Mathematical Structure for Modeling Inventions", Coimbra, CICM-2014 ^*
[Reference 64]
SSBG's Petition to the CAFC for Rehearing En Banc in the '902 case, 18.04.2014 ^* .
[Reference 65]
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: VEDERI vs. GOOGLE decision; March 14, 2014
[Reference 66]
US Federal Circuit Court of Appeal: THERASENSE vs. BECTON & BAYER decision, 25.05.2011
[Reference 67]
B. Fiacco: Amikas Brief to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the Case of VERSATA v. SAP & US Patent Office
[Reference 68]
Alice Corp v. CLS Case 13-298 Official Sentence of Oral Argument at the US Supreme Court Subject to final Review, March 31, 2014, Alderson Reporting Company ^*
[Reference 69]
R. Rader, Keynote Speech: “Patent Law and Litigation Abuse”, ED Tex Bench and Bar Conf., November 1, 2013 ^*
[Reference 70]
S. Schindler, Keynote Speech: “eKnowledge About Substantive Patent Law (SPL) -Trail Blazer into the Innovation Age”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014 ^*
[Reference 71]
S. Schindler: “The Supreme Court's 'SPL Initiative': Scientizing Its SPL Interpretation Clarifies Three Initially Evergreen SPL Obscurities”, submitted for publ., 2014 ^*
[Reference 72]
US Patent Office / MPEP: “2014 Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature / Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And / Or Natural Products” ^*
[Reference 73]
B. Wegner, S. Schindler: "The Mathematical Structure for Modeling the Refined Claim Construction", in prep.
[Reference 74]
Tbd
[Reference 75]
D. Crouch: “En Banc Federal Circuit Panel Changes the Law of Claim Construction”, 13.07.2005.
[Reference 76]
Video of the Hearing on 09.05.2014 organized by the PTO ^*
[Reference 77]
R. Rader, Keynote Speeches at GTIF, Geneva, 2014 and LESI, Moscow, 2014
[Reference 78]
S. Schindler: “On the BRI-Schism in the US National Patent System (NPS), A Challenge for the US Highest Courts”, May 22, 2014, subm. For publ. ^*
[Reference 79]
SSBG's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the '902 case, in preparation.

*) See www.fstp-expert-system.com.

Footnote / Endnote 1
While there is currently a difference between the United States “Substantive Patent Law, SPL” and other domains / states, eg, EUs that have an EPC SPL, the so-understood SPL is internationally Harmonization is completely political in the United States, much in the EU and many industrialized countries, as politically less controversial, as evidenced in the Supreme Court, and economically for all parties This difference should be resolved sooner or later because it is very beneficial. For example, a similar process used to be in place, such as in the domestic accounting of a public company, today harmonized as a global IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standard). Here, patent highway programs at several large patent offices play an important role.

Note 2
By performing the NANO test for this CI, there is no prior art or pragmatics that will determine and create a creative height that should be greater than 5 by those skilled in the art. According to References 5 and 6, the high creativity of this CI is
Greater than 1, thereby ensuring its novelty (as in the art, there is no prior art document that expects one of the above five BID-inCs), especially at least
-5 or more, thereby guaranteeing its non-obviousness for the same reason.

Note 3
Because of the novelty in this part of the specification, many details (obvious) are briefly described in Chapter 2. What is not important is extra in the patent specification, which has this part. If a future patent application is supported by its PTR-DS or by the IES disclosed herein, the above description may be self-evident, but on the real-time request to the user, It is potentially represented in the most controllable multimedia representation.

Claims (30)

By running
At least a processor, a memory for storing code of a method executable by the processor, at least one I / O device for performing an IES interaction with an IES (Innovation Expert System) user, a memory for storing data relating to the operation of the IES , And “User Interface Entity (UIE)”, the UIE is a UIE :: = {<KR-UIE, HI-UIE, IC-UIE>. Execute “Innovation Expert System (IES)” including Y | Y∈Y ^UIE }
^{Predetermined} “PTR data structure, PTR ^FFOLLIN- DS (PTR Data Structure)” determined by FSTP ^FFOLLIN -test stored in the memory , “demonstable subtest , AST (Arguable Subtest) stored in the memory ” ”∈FSTP ^FFOLLIN -for tests (except for future ^{“ FFOLLIN ”} ), and“ in config mode to generate and customize a set of legal grammar term chains, LAC (legal argument chains),
However, {LAC} :: = {LAC ^AST . Z | LAC ^AST . Z is TT. 0 proves that it passes through AST∀ZεZ ^AST }, so that ∀ZεZ ^AST ⊂Y ^UIE is the KR-UIE. Z, HI-UIE. Z and user-determined IC-UIE. Holding Z,
In real-time mode, the activated and / or customized LAC ^AST . Z, Z ∈ Z ^AST ,
When executed by the IES, the operation A) is repeated when the IES is in the configuration mode, and the operation B) is repeated when the IES is in the real-time mode. Run against
The operations A) and B) of the IES are as follows:
A)
i. The IES automatically recognizes ZεZ ^AST for existing LAC ^AST or ASTεFSTP-test (PTR) converted to LAC,
ii. The recognized KR-UIE. The AST is input to Z, and what expresses which I / O device the AST is on is expressed as its HI-UIE. Automatically prompting the user to enter in the IC-UIE what interaction control the user has in the representation of the AST
iii. Automatically accepts information from at least one IES user communicating with at least one other IES user's I / O device;
iv. In response to a request from an IES user, the IES user's IES mode is switched to the real-time mode,
B)
i. Automatically recognize LACε {LAC ^AST },
ii. Automatically recognizes AST, and automatically recognizes LACε {LAC ^AST },
iii. In determining the LAC, ii. Of A). Represent the LAC as Ru is or predefined as defined in,
iv. Automatically accepts information from at least one IES user communicating with at least one other IES user's I / O device;
v. In response to a request from an IES user, the IES user's IES mode is switched to the configuration mode.
Computer mounting method. Either by selecting the expression from a predetermined set of IES of the expression described above, or by describing the expression in a predetermined IES notation, the user input expression requested by the IES is recognized by the user. ,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. An IES that is output for use by at least one IES user, either by selecting the representation from a predetermined set of IES of the representation described above, or by describing the representation in a predetermined IES notation. Is recognized by the user,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. User input is at least KR-UIE. Y, HI-UIE. Y or IC-UIE. Switch the function of the IES to automatically generate or modify part of Y interactively with the user,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. The IES is a UIE. For Y, UIE. Y or UIE. Providing the user with the ability to further divide Y steps into steps and eliminate such subdivisions;
UIE. The action of further dividing or removing Y is determined by the IES controlled by the user or IES user, and any action defined in A) and B) is applied to the step.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. The at least one AST is completely entered by the IES user or is derived by the IES from at least one PTR-DS recognized by the IES user, interactively or automatically with the IES user,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. The PTR-DS is partially entered, modified or verified by an IES user,
If insufficient, the PTR-DS is completed by the IES interactive with IES users.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. The FFOLLIN is provided by the PTR-DS, or the FFOLN is selected from a predetermined IES set of the FFROLLN, and the TT. Input by the user either by completing the selected FFOLN as FFOLLIN with 0 inC, and by describing the FFOLLIN or FFROLLN in a predetermined IES description method.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. The IES user restricts SPL by document, and TT. The additional restriction to 0 is described by the notation given by the IES,
The IES checks that the result set of restrictions retains the FFOL property.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. The IES user follows the predetermined procedure of the IES and the PTR-DS and the associated TT. Can be authenticated to mark up at least one part of the UIE used by the zero test and to allow the IES to monitor its use as well as to recognize and authenticate any such part Sign in a
Write a log file about its use,
Informs the IES user of its use instantaneously or whether a certain IES event that can be constructed by the IES user has occurred,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Both states expressed as configured by the IES user in the notation provided by the IES by the IES user recognizing the actual state of the IES and switching between different recognized states Obtaining a description of the difference from the IES;
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. The IES user cancels the most recent interaction with the IES that changes its I / EM,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. An IES user enables / disables at least one other IES user for at least one interaction with the IES user;
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. An IES user can select at least a portion of the representation of the IES that is selectable from a set of parts provided by the IES or described by the IES user in a notation provided by the IES. Synchronize to two IES users,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. An IES user can select an IES user from a set of parts provided by the IES, or described by the IES user in a notation provided by the IES. Request a part of the log file of the IES execution period for 0,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1. By running
At least a processor, a memory for storing code of a method executable by the processor, at least one I / O device for performing an IES interaction with an IES (Innovation Expert System) user, a memory for storing data relating to the operation of the IES , And “User Interface Entity (UIE)”, the UIE is a UIE :: = {<KR-UIE, HI-UIE, IC-UIE>. Execute “Innovation Expert System (IES)” including Y | Y∈Y ^UIE }
FSTP ^FFOLLIN stored in the memory - predetermined determined by the test "PTR data ^{structures, PTR FFOLLIN -DS (PTR Data Structure} ) " and stored in the memory has been "demonstrable subtest, AST (Arguable Subtest) ”∈FSTP ^FFOLLIN -for tests (except for future ^{“ FFOLLIN ”} ), and“ in config mode to generate and customize a set of legal grammar term chains, LAC (legal argument chains),
However, {LAC} :: = {LAC ^AST . Z | LAC ^AST . Z is TT. 0 proves that it passes through AST∀ZεZ ^AST }, so that ∀ZεZ ^AST ⊂Y ^UIE is the KR-UIE. Z, HI-UIE. Z and user-determined IC-UIE. Holding Z,
In real-time mode, the activated and / or customized LAC ^AST . Z, Z ∈ Z ^AST ,
When executed by the IES, the operation A) is repeated when the IES is in the configuration mode, and the operation B) is repeated when the IES is in the real-time mode. Run against
The operations A) and B) of the IES are as follows:
A)
i. The IES automatically recognizes ZεZ ^AST for existing LAC ^AST or ASTεFSTP-test (PTR) converted to LAC,
ii. The recognized KR--UIE. The AST is input to Z, and what expresses which I / O device the AST is on is expressed as its HI-UIE. Automatically prompts the user to enter into the IC-UI what interactive control the user has in the representation of the AST,
iii. Automatically accepts information from at least one IES user communicating with at least one other IES user's I / O device;
iv. In response to a request from an IES user, the IES user's IES mode is switched to the real-time mode,
B)
i. Automatically recognize LACε {LAC ^AST },
ii. Automatically recognizes AST, and automatically recognizes LACε {LAC ^AST },
iii. In determining the LAC, ii. Of A). Represent the LAC as Ru is or predefined as defined in,
iv. Automatically accepts information from at least one IES user communicating with at least one other IES user's I / O device;
v. In response to a request from an IES user, the IES user's IES mode is switched to the configuration mode.
Computer mounted system. Either by selecting the expression from a predetermined set of IES of the expression described above, or by describing the expression in a predetermined IES notation, the user input expression requested by the IES is recognized by the user. ,
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. An IES that is output for use by at least one IES user, either by selecting the representation from a predetermined set of IES of the representation described above, or by describing the representation in a predetermined IES notation. Is recognized by the user,
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. User input is at least KR-UIE. Y, HI-UIE. Y or IC-UIE. Switch the function of the IES to automatically generate or modify part of Y interactively with the user,
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. The IES is a UIE. For Y, UIE. Y or UIE. Providing the user with the ability to further divide Y steps into steps and eliminate such subdivisions;
UIE. The action of further dividing or removing Y is determined by the IES controlled by the user or IES user, and any action defined in A) and B) is applied to the step.
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. The at least one AST is completely entered by the IES user or is derived by the IES from at least one PTR-DS recognized by the IES user, interactively or automatically with the IES user,
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. The PTR-DS is partially entered, modified or verified by an IES user,
If insufficient, the PTR-DS is completed by the IES interactive with IES users.
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. The FFOLLIN is provided by the PTR-DS, or the FFOLN is selected from a predetermined IES set of the FFROLLN, and the TT. Input by the user either by completing the selected FFOLN as FFOLLIN with 0 inC, and by describing the FFOLLIN or FFROLLN in a predetermined IES description method.
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. The IES user restricts SPL by document, and TT. The additional restriction to 0 is described by the notation given by the IES,
The IES checks that the result set of restrictions retains the FFOL property.
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. The IES user follows the predetermined procedure of the IES and the PTR-DS and the associated TT. Can be authenticated to mark up at least one part of the UIE used by the zero test and to allow the IES to monitor its use as well as to recognize and authenticate any such part Sign in a
Write a log file about its use,
Informs the IES user of its use instantaneously or whether a certain IES event that can be constructed by the IES user has occurred,
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. Both states expressed as configured by the IES user in the notation provided by the IES by the IES user recognizing the actual state of the IES and switching between different recognized states Obtaining a description of the difference from the IES;
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. The IES user cancels the most recent interaction with the IES that changes its I / EM,
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. An IES user enables / disables at least one other IES user for at least one interaction with the IES user;
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. An IES user can select at least a portion of the representation of the IES that is selectable from a set of parts provided by the IES or described by the IES user in a notation provided by the IES. Synchronize to two IES users,
The computer-implemented system of claim 16. An IES user can select an IES user from a set of parts provided by the IES, or described by the IES user in a notation provided by the IES. Request a part of the log file of the IES execution period for 0,
The computer-implemented system of claim 16.

Images