Information processing device, information processing method, and program

Abstract

This invention provides an information processing device, an information processing method, and a program that can support the examination of the patentability of an invention. [Solution] One aspect of the information processing device of the present disclosure comprises: an input unit that inputs prompts to a generation model for generating correspondence data that associates each of the constituent elements with the extracted correspondence data, which divides the invention into constituent elements, extracts the reasons for the patentability judgment from document data that contains the results of the patentability judgment for each segmented constituent element, extracts the content of the relevant section that forms the basis of the patentability judgment by referring to the literature used in the patentability judgment, and

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present disclosure relates to an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a program.

Background Art

[0002] Conventionally, techniques for supporting the acquisition of rights such as patent rights in intellectual property rights have been known.

[0003] For example, Patent Document 1 discloses a technique for discriminating types of reasons for rejection related to deficiencies in descriptions (Article 36, Paragraph 4, Item 1, Paragraph 6, Item 1, and Item 2 of the Patent Law) notified for patent applications using a learned model. According to the technique disclosed in Patent Document 1, it is possible to reduce the labor required for analyzing the reasons for rejection.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0004]

【Patent Document Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2022-158558

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0005] However, the content that can be supported by the technique disclosed in Patent Document 1 described above is limited to the analysis of so-called description requirements, and there is room for improvement.

[0006] The present disclosure has been made in view of the above circumstances, and an object thereof is to provide an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a program capable of supporting the examination of the patentability of an invention.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0007] One aspect of the information processing device of the present disclosure comprises an input unit that inputs prompts to a generation model for generating correspondence data that associates each of the constituent elements with the extracted correspondence data, which divides the invention into constituent elements, extracts the reasons for the patentability judgment from document data that contains the results of the patentability judgment for each segmented constituent element, extracts the content of the relevant section that forms the basis of the patentability judgment by referring to the literature used in the patentability judgment, and

[0008] One aspect of the information processing method of the present disclosure includes an input step in which an input unit divides the invention into constituent elements, extracts the reasons for patentability from document data in which the results of the patentability judgment are described for each segmented constituent element, extracts the content of the relevant sections that form the basis of the patentability judgment by referring to the literature used in the patentability judgment, and inputs a prompt to a generation model to generate correspondence data that associates each of the constituent elements with the extracted content of the relevant sections; and an output data acquisition step in which an output data acquisition unit acquires the correspondence data from the generation model.

[0009] One aspect of the program of this disclosure involves causing a computer to execute the following steps: an input step of inputting prompts to a generation model for generating correspondence data that associates each of the constituent elements with the extracted correspondence data, by dividing the invention into constituent elements, extracting the reasons for the patentability judgment from document data that contains the results of the patentability judgment for each segmented constituent element, by referring to the documents used in the patentability judgment, and by obtaining the correspondence data from the generation model. [Effects of the Invention]

[0010] This disclosure provides an information processing device, an information processing method, and a program that can support the examination of the patentability of an invention. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0011] [Figure 1] Figure 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the system configuration of the information processing system according to this embodiment. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is a block diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device of this embodiment. [Figure 3] Figure 3 is a block diagram showing an example of the functional configuration of the information processing device according to this embodiment. [Figure 4] Figure 4 shows an example of the claims described in the first document data of this embodiment. [Figure 5] Figure 5 shows an example of the second document data of this embodiment. [Figure 6] Figure 6 shows an example of literature data for this embodiment. [Figure 7] Figure 7 shows an example of literature data for this embodiment. [Figure 8] Figure 8 shows an example of a prompt in this embodiment. [Figure 9] Figure 9 shows an example of the correspondence data in this embodiment. [Figure 10] Figure 10 shows an example of the format of the comparison table file in this embodiment. [Figure 11] Figure 11 shows an example of a comparison table file according to this embodiment. [Figure 12] Figure 12 is a flowchart showing an example of the comparison table file generation process performed in the information processing device of this embodiment. [Figure 13] Figure 13 shows an example of a comparison table file for Modification Example 1. [Figure 14] Figure 14 shows an example of a comparison table file for Modification Example 2. [Figure 15] Figure 15 shows an example of a comparison table file for Modification Example 3. [Figure 16] Figure 16 shows an example of a comparison table file for Modification Example 4. [Figure 17]FIG. 17 is a diagram showing an example of the first prompt of Modification 5 and an example of a response to the first prompt. [Figure 18] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing an example of the second prompt of Modification 5 and an example of a response to the second prompt. [Figure 19] FIG. 19 is a diagram showing an example of the third prompt of Modification 5. [Figure 20] FIG. 20 is a diagram showing an example of a prompt of Modification 6.

Mode for Carrying Out the Invention

[0012] Hereinafter, embodiments of the present disclosure (hereinafter simply referred to as "the present embodiments") will be described in detail with reference to the drawings. The present disclosure is not limited to the following embodiments. Also, the following embodiments and each modification can be combined as appropriate.

[0013] In the following embodiments, as support for examining the patentability of an invention, a comparison table file in which each constituent element of the invention is compared in tabular form with the description content of the corresponding part of one or more cited documents regarded as the basis for novelty or inventive step violation is generated and output using a generation model. Note that a novelty violation means that the invention falls under Article 29(1)(iii) of the Patent Act, and an inventive step violation means that the invention falls under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act. [[ID=--]]

[0014] In the following embodiments, by using a generation model, a comparison table file can be generated automatically or semi-automatically, so that the labor of organizing information for the user to examine the patentability of the invention can be saved. Therefore, according to the following embodiments, the user can be made to focus on the examination of the patentability of the invention (examination of countermeasures such as the presence or absence of differences from cited documents), and the examination of the patentability of the invention by the user can be supported. [[ID=--]]

[0015] In the following, this embodiment will be explained using the examination of the patentability of an invention during the examination stage as an example, but the applications of this disclosure are not limited to this. This disclosure can also be used to examine the patentability of an invention in various trial stages, such as patent opposition proceedings, appeals against rejection decisions, invalidation trials, and correction trials, as well as in various litigation stages, such as lawsuits for revocation of trial decisions and patent infringement lawsuits. Furthermore, this disclosure can be used to examine the patentability of an invention based on the results of prior art search services conducted by specialized organizations, or prior art search services using AI (Artificial Intelligence). This disclosure can also be used to examine the patentability of an invention using simulations or actual examples in various exercises, training, and educational programs. Finally, this disclosure can be used to examine the validity of utility model registrations.

[0016] First, the configuration of the information processing system in this embodiment will be described.

[0017] Figure 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the system configuration of the information processing system 1 of this embodiment. As shown in Figure 1, the information processing system 1 comprises an information processing device 10 and a generation model 30.

[0018] The information processing device 10 and the generation model 30 are connected via network 2. Network 2 can be implemented by at least one of the following: the Internet and / or a LAN (Local Area Network). Network 2 may be a wired network, a wireless network, or a mixture of wired and wireless networks.

[0019] The information processing device 10 supports the user's examination of the patentability of their invention using a generation model 30. Examples of the information processing device 10 include, but are not limited to, a PC (Personal Computer), a tablet device, or a smartphone.

[0020] The generative model 30 is a natural language processing model, also known as generative AI (Generative Artificial Intelligence), and provides services using natural language processing. In this embodiment, the generative model 30 is described as an AI chat service that has been fine-tuned from a large language model (LLM), but it is not limited to this.

[0021] Figure 2 is a block diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device 10 of this embodiment. As shown in Figure 2, the information processing device 10 comprises a control device 11, a main memory 12, an auxiliary storage device 13, a communication device 14, an input device 15, a display device 16, and various buses 19. The control device 11, main memory 12, auxiliary storage device 13, communication device 14, input device 15, and display device 16 are connected via various buses 19. Thus, the information processing device 10 of this embodiment has a general hardware configuration using a normal computer.

[0022] The control device 11 controls the overall operation of the information processing device 10. The control device 11 may be, for example, at least one of a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), but is not limited to these. There may be one or more CPUs or GPUs, and they may be single-core or multi-core.

[0023] Examples of main memory 12 include, but are not limited to, ROM (Read Only Memory) and RAM (Random Access Memory). ROM stores various programs, such as programs for controlling the information processing device 10 and programs for supporting the examination of the patentability of the invention. RAM is used as a work area when the control device 11 performs various controls based on the programs stored in ROM.

[0024] The auxiliary storage device 13 stores the various programs mentioned above, as well as various data used to support the examination of the patentability of the invention. The various programs mentioned above only need to be stored in at least one of the main storage device 12 and the auxiliary storage device 13. Examples of the auxiliary storage device 13 include, but are not limited to, at least one of existing storage devices capable of magnetic, electrical, or optical storage, such as an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), SSD (Solid State Drive), and DVD (Digital Versatile Disc). The auxiliary storage device 13 may be built into the information processing device 10 or externally connected to the information processing device 10 via an interface such as USB (Universal Serial Bus). Furthermore, the auxiliary storage device 13 may be a NAS (Network Attached Storage) connected via a network such as a LAN or WAN (Wide Area Network).

[0025] The communication device 14 is used to communicate with the generation model 30 and the like via the network 2. Examples of the communication device 14 include, but are not limited to, a communication device for a wired LAN or a wireless communication device for a wireless LAN.

[0026] The input device 15 is used by the user for various inputs, selections, and specifications, and serves as a user interface between the user and the system. Examples of input devices 15 include, but are not limited to, keyboards, mice, and touch panels. The input device 15 may be built into the information processing device 10 or connected externally to the information processing device 10 via an interface such as USB.

[0027] The display device 16 displays various screens and serves as a user interface between the user and the device. Examples of the display device 16 include, but are not limited to, liquid crystal displays, organic electro-luminescence (OLED) displays, and touch panel displays. The display device 16 may be an internal display built into the information processing device 10, or an external display connected to the information processing device 10 via a display interface such as HDMI®.

[0028] In addition to the above configuration, the information processing device 10 may further include hardwired circuits such as ICs (Integrated Circuits), ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits), and FPGAs (Field-Programmable Gate Arrays) that are specific to the information processing device 10.

[0029] Figure 3 is a block diagram showing an example of the functional configuration of the information processing device 10 of this embodiment. As shown in Figure 3, the information processing device 10 includes a reception unit 101, an input unit 103, an output data acquisition unit 105, a formatting unit 107, and an output unit 109. The reception unit 101, input unit 103, output data acquisition unit 105, formatting unit 107, and output unit 109 can be realized, for example, by the control device 11, main memory 12, and communication device 14 described in Figure 2. For example, the control device 11 reads a program stored in the main memory 12 (ROM) or auxiliary memory 13 to support the examination of the patentability of the invention and expands it into the main memory 12 (RAM). The control device 11 realizes each of the above-mentioned functional units by executing various processes according to the expanded program. Here, the case in which each of the above-mentioned functional units is realized as software has been explained as an example, but at least a part of each of the above-mentioned functional units may be realized as hardware. In this case, the functional unit to be realized as hardware can be realized, for example, by the hardwired circuit described above. Furthermore, any of the above-mentioned functional units may be implemented through the cooperation of software and hardware.

[0030] It should be noted that the information processing device 10 of this embodiment does not necessarily require all of the above-described functional units to be part of the configuration; at least some of the functional units can be omitted. For example, the shaping unit 107 can be omitted.

[0031] The following describes in detail each functional part of the information processing device 10. While the following explanation uses the example of a case where a patent application is rejected for lack of inventive step, as mentioned above, the applications of this disclosure are not limited to this.

[0032] The reception unit 101 receives prompts, which are instruction texts for the generation model 30, entered by the user (for example, a patent applicant or their agent) using the input device 15 or the like. Specifically, the reception unit 101 receives prompt inputs to generate mapping data, which associates each of the one or more constituent elements that describe the invention with the content of the relevant sections of one or more documents that were used as the basis for the patentability judgment in the document data describing the result of the patentability judgment.

[0033] In this implementation configuration, the prompt describes or refers to the contents of the first document data containing text to specify the invention, the second document data containing the results of the patentability assessment, and one or more document data indicating one or more documents.

[0034] Examples of text used to specify an invention include the description of the claims. The first document data can be any document data that contains the content of the claims, and is not limited to, but includes, at least one of the following: data of a patent application filed by the applicant with the Japan Patent Office, and data of various publications such as published patent gazettes that disclose the content of a patent application or patent gazettes that disclose the content of a patent. Figure 4 shows an example of the claims described in the first document data of this embodiment. In the example shown in Figure 4, the claims included in the patent application data are shown as an example of the first document data.

[0035] Examples of second document data include, but are not limited to, data from a notice of reasons for rejection or a rejection decision notified to the applicant by a patent examiner at the Japan Patent Office when the examiner determines (examines) that the invention covered by the patent application is not patentable. The data from the notice of reasons for rejection or the rejection decision includes the application number of the patent application under examination (an example of first document identification information that identifies the first document data). The data from the notice of reasons for rejection or the rejection decision also includes the reasons for rejection, such as lack of novelty or inventive step, and the content of that determination (notes). Furthermore, the data from the notice of reasons for rejection or the rejection decision includes the name and number of the cited document that was cited as the basis for the lack of novelty or inventive step (an example of document identification information that identifies the document), as well as the paragraph number, page, and column indicating the location of the document in which the cited content is described (an example of relevant location information that indicates the relevant part of the document). Figure 5 is a diagram showing an example of second document data in this embodiment. In the example shown in Figure 5, the data from the notice of reasons for rejection is used as an example of second document data.

[0036] The literature data consists of data from cited documents that were used as the basis for claims such as lack of novelty or inventive step. Cited documents include, but are not limited to, the various publications mentioned above, as well as non-patent literature such as technical papers and academic papers. Figures 6 and 7 show examples of literature data in this embodiment. In the example shown in Figures 6 and 7, published patent gazette data is used as an example of literature data.

[0037] Specifically, the prompt may include (reference) at least one of the first document data, the second document data, and one or more reference data as attached data (attached files), or it may include (describe) the contents of at least one of the first document data, the second document data, and one or more reference data as text data.

[0038] Figure 8 shows an example of a prompt in this embodiment. The prompt shown in Figure 8 includes instructions for generating mapping data in the generation model 30, as well as text data of the claims included in the first document data, and includes the second document data and one or more reference data as attached data (attached files). Specifically, the prompt shown in Figure 8 describes the claims described in the first document data shown in Figure 4. Furthermore, the prompt shown in Figure 8 is assumed to have the first document data shown in Figure 5 attached as a notice of reasons for rejection 51, and the reference data shown in Figures 6 and 7 attached as cited references 53 and 55, respectively.

[0039] The first document data, the second document data, and one or more document data may be stored in advance, for example, in an auxiliary storage device 13, and the user may extract the contents and write the prompt when creating a prompt, or they may be attached to the prompt as attached data. Alternatively, for example, at least one of the first document data, the second document data, and one or more document data may be obtained from a patent database (not shown) instead of being stored in the auxiliary storage device 13.

[0040] A patent database is a database that primarily manages and provides information related to patents. It may be a database such as a patent search service operated by a private company, or a database operated by a national patent office. Furthermore, a patent database may also manage and provide information related to intellectual property rights other than patents, such as utility models.

[0041] The input unit 103 inputs the prompt received by the reception unit 101 into the generation model 30. For example, the input unit 103 divides the invention into constituent elements, extracts the reasons for patentability judgment from document data that describes the results of the patentability judgment for each segmented constituent element, extracts the content of the relevant sections that form the basis of the patentability judgment by referring to the literature used in the patentability judgment, and inputs prompts into the generation model 30 to generate correspondence data that associates each constituent element with the content of the extracted relevant sections. The reasons for patentability judgment include grounds for rejection for lack of novelty or inventive step, cited documents and their paragraph numbers that were used as the basis for the lack of novelty or inventive step. For example, the input unit 103 inputs the prompt shown in Figure 8 into the generation model 30.

[0042] The output data acquisition unit 105 acquires the mapping data generated by the generation model 30 based on the prompt input to the generation model 30. For example, if the prompt shown in Figure 8 is input to the generation model 30 by the input unit 103, the output data acquisition unit 105 acquires the mapping data shown in Figure 9 from the generation model 30.

[0043] Figure 9 shows an example of the correspondence data for this embodiment. In the correspondence data shown in Figure 9, the claimed invention included in the prompt shown in Figure 8 is broken down into constituent elements, and each constituent element is associated with the paragraph number and content of the relevant section of the cited document that was cited as the basis for the lack of inventive step.

[0044] For example, reference numeral 61 indicates a constituent element that breaks down the claimed invention included in the prompt. Also, for example, reference numeral 63 indicates the title of the cited document and the paragraph number of the relevant section, which were used as the basis for rejecting the constituent element indicated by reference numeral 61 in the case of lack of inventive step. The title of the cited document and the paragraph number were extracted from either the notice of reasons for rejection 51 (first document data shown in Figure 5) or cited document 53 (document data shown in Figure 6). Also, for example, reference numeral 65 indicates the content of the paragraph number of the cited document indicated by reference numeral 63. The content was extracted from cited document 53 (document data shown in Figure 6).

[0045] The formatting unit 107 formats the correspondence data acquired by the output data acquisition unit 105 to generate a comparison table file that compares each of the one or more constituent elements with the corresponding sections of one or more references in a tabular format. For example, the formatting unit 107 generates the comparison table file by extracting the corresponding sections from the correspondence data acquired by the output data acquisition unit 105 and placing them as actual data in each cell of the comparison table file format that contains only the items of the comparison table. The format of the comparison table file may be stored in advance in the auxiliary storage device 13 or the like, or the formatting unit 107 may dynamically generate it by taking into account the number of claims, the number of explained constituent elements, and the number of cited references from a base format that has been stored in advance in the auxiliary storage device 13 or the like.

[0046] Figure 10 shows an example of the format of the comparison table file in this embodiment. In the format shown in Figure 10, the items are "Claim," "The Invention," and "References." The item "Claim" is where the claim number and sub-number of the constituent element are listed. The item "The Invention" is where the constituent elements of the claimed invention are listed (an example of the first item). The item "References" is where the paragraph number and content of the cited document that is used as grounds to negate the constituent element being compared are listed (an example of the second item). Note that the item "References" is prepared for each cited document. In other words, the format is composed of one or more second items corresponding to one or more documents, and each of the one or more second items contains the content of the corresponding section of the one or more documents.

[0047] Figure 11 shows an example of a comparison table file of this embodiment. The comparison table file shown in Figure 11 was generated by the formatting unit 107 formatting the correspondence data shown in Figure 9 using the format shown in Figure 10. The item "The Invention" describes each of the explained constituent elements, and each "Reference" in the item contains the paragraph number and content of the reference document that is cited as evidence if there is grounds to negate the constituent element being compared.

[0048] For example, cell 71, which contains constituent element 1A, which is constituent element A of claim 1 of the present invention, contains the constituent element indicated by reference numeral 61 in the correspondence data shown in Figure 9. Also, for example, cell 73, which contains the content of the relevant section of cited document 1 that was used as the basis for rejecting constituent element 1A, contains the paragraph number indicated by reference numeral 63 and the content indicated by reference numeral 65 in the correspondence data shown in Figure 9. Also, for example, in the notice of reasons for rejection, constituent element 1A is not rejected on the basis of cited document 2, and there is no corresponding content in the correspondence data shown in Figure 9, so cell 75, which contains the content of the relevant section of cited document 2 that was used as the basis for rejecting constituent element 1A, is blank.

[0049] Furthermore, as shown in Figure 11, the comparison table file of this embodiment does not include the content of the patentability judgment described in the notice of reasons for rejection (or its notes). This allows users considering the patentability of an invention to consider patentability based on objective facts, such as the constituent elements of the invention and the content of the cited documents, without being influenced by the judgment of others, such as examiners.

[0050] For example, cell 77 describes "a second means for acquiring BBB information" as constituent element 1B, which is constituent element B of claim 1 in the present invention. On the other hand, cell 79 describes paragraphs

[0020] and

[0021] of cited document 2, which were used as grounds to reject constituent element 1B, as "acquiring FFF information" and "FFF information includes BBB" information". Therefore, the user can immediately understand that "BBB information" in constituent element 1B is rejected by "BBB" information" in cited document 2. Thus, by considering whether "BBB information" is a concept that includes "BBB" information", the user can determine whether cited document 2 is qualified to reject constituent element 1B based on objective facts such as the constituent elements of the invention and the contents of the cited document, without being influenced by the examiner's judgment. Furthermore, if "BBB information" is a concept that includes "BBB'' information", then the user can determine that element 1B is negated based on reference 2, and if "BBB information" is a concept that does not include "BBB'' information", then the user can determine that element 1B is not negated based on reference 2.

[0051] The output unit 109 performs output based on the correspondence data acquired by the output data acquisition unit 105. Specifically, the output unit 109 outputs a comparison table file generated by the formatting unit 107. The output unit 109 may also output the correspondence data acquired by the output data acquisition unit 105 as is. The correspondence data may be data that can be converted into a table format that compares one or more constituent requirements with the content of the corresponding section in one or more documents, for example, in JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format or XML (Extensible Markup Language) format. Alternatively, the correspondence data may be text data (text file) with a table structure, such as in CSV (Comma Separated Values) format, that can be converted into a table format that compares one or more constituent requirements with the content of the corresponding section in one or more documents. Furthermore, if the correspondence data is a comparison table file in which one or more constituent requirements are compared with the content of the corresponding sections in one or more documents in a tabular format, the output unit 109 may output the comparison table file by outputting the correspondence data as is. For example, if the prompt input to the generation model 30 instructs it to generate the correspondence data in a tabular format, the correspondence data can be obtained as a comparison table file. Note that the output of the comparison table file by the output unit 109 may be a display output to the display device 16, an external output using the communication device 14, or a print output using a printing device (not shown).

[0052] Next, the operation of the information processing device of this embodiment will be described.

[0053] Figure 12 is a flowchart showing an example of the comparison table file generation process performed by the information processing device 10 of this embodiment.

[0054] First, the reception unit 101 receives prompt input to generate correspondence data that associates the content of the relevant sections of one or more documents used as the basis for determining patentability with each of the one or more constituent elements that describe the invention (step S101).

[0055] Next, the input unit 103 inputs the prompt received by the reception unit 101 to the generation model 30 (step S103).

[0056] Next, the output data acquisition unit 105 acquires the correspondence data generated by the generation model 30 based on the prompt input to the generation model 30 (step S105).

[0057] Next, the formatting unit 107 formats the correspondence data acquired by the output data acquisition unit 105 to generate a comparison table file in which each of the one or more constituent requirements is compared with the content of the corresponding section in one or more documents in a tabular format (step S107).

[0058] Next, the output unit 109 outputs the comparison table file generated by the formatting unit 107 (step S109).

[0059] As described above, in this embodiment, by utilizing the generation model, a comparison table file can be generated automatically or semi-automatically, thus eliminating the need for the user to organize information for examining the patentability of the invention. Therefore, according to this embodiment, the user can focus on examining the patentability of the invention (such as examining whether there are differences with cited documents and considering countermeasures), and it is possible to support the user's examination of the patentability of the invention.

[0060] In particular, the comparison table file of this embodiment does not include the content of the patentability judgment described in the notice of reasons for rejection (or its notes), so users considering the patentability of an invention can consider patentability based on objective facts such as the constituent elements of the invention and the content of the cited documents, without being influenced by the judgment of others such as examiners.

[0061] (Variation 1) Modification 1 describes a method for making it easier to understand which part of the constituent element 1 is refuted by each cited document in the comparison table file, even when the constituent element 1 is refuted based on multiple cited documents. In Modification 1, the differences from the above embodiment will be mainly explained, and the parts that are the same as the above embodiment will not be explained.

[0062] In Modification 1, a sub-item is added to the "Cited Documents" item in the comparison table file format. Specifically, the "Cited Documents" item includes an item "Relevant Description" (an example of a third item) which lists the paragraph number and content of the cited document that was used as grounds to reject the constituent element being compared, and an item "Relevant Part" (an example of a fourth item) which lists the part of the constituent element being compared that is rejected based on the content of the "Relevant Description" item. In other words, in the format of Modification 1, each of the one or more second items further includes a third item which lists the content of the corresponding section of the document from among one or more documents, and a fourth item which lists the part of the constituent element described in the first item for which the patentability judgment was made based on the content of the relevant section described in the third item.

[0063] The formatting unit 107 of Modified Example 1 generates a comparison table file by, for example, extracting the corresponding parts from the correspondence data acquired by the output data acquisition unit 105 and placing them as actual data in each cell of the comparison table file format of Modified Example 1 described above.

[0064] Figure 13 shows an example of a comparison table file for Modification Example 1. The comparison table file shown in Figure 13 was generated by the formatting unit 107 of Modification Example 1 formatting the correspondence data shown in Figure 9 using the format of Modification Example 1. The item "The Invention" describes each of the explained constituent elements. In the sub-item "Relevant Description" of each "Reference Document" in the item, if there is grounds to negate the constituent element being compared, the paragraph number and content of the reference document that is used as the grounds are described. In the sub-item "Relevant Part" of each "Reference Document" in the item, the part of the constituent element described in the item "The Invention" that is negated based on the content described in the sub-item "Relevant Description" is described.

[0065] For example, cell 401 describes "a third acquisition means for acquiring CCC information based on the AAA information and the BBB information" as constituent element 1C of claim 1 in the present invention. Here, cell 405 describes the contents of paragraphs

[0016] and

[0020] of cited document 1, which were used as grounds to reject constituent element 1C, as "searching for DDD information using the AAA information as a key" and "DDD information includes CCC information...". Therefore, cell 403 describes the part of the constituent element described in cell 401 that is rejected based on the contents of cited document 1 described in cell 405 as "acquiring CCC information based on the AAA information".

[0066] Furthermore, cell 409 contains the following descriptions of paragraphs

[0021] and

[0025] of reference document 2, which were used as grounds for rejecting constituent element 1C: "FFF information includes BBB" information" and "Based on the FFF information, ...CCC information is obtained." Therefore, cell 407 contains the following description of the constituent element described in cell 401, which is rejected based on the description of reference document 2 described in cell 409: "Based on the BBB information, CCC information is obtained."

[0067] In the comparison table file of Modification 1, for each cited document, the portion of the constituent element that is negated by the content of that cited document is extracted, and the extracted portion of the constituent element is compared with the content of that cited document. Therefore, according to Modification 1, even if one constituent element is negated based on multiple cited documents, the comparison table file makes it easier for the user to understand which portion of the constituent element each cited document negates.

[0068] Furthermore, the extraction of the parts of the constituent elements that are rejected by the cited references can be achieved, for example, by the formatting unit 107 of Modified Example 1 using natural language processing or the like to extract the parts of the constituent elements whose similarity to the content of the cited references exceeds a threshold. Alternatively, for example, the prompt input to the generation model 30 can be used to instruct it to extract the content of multiple cited references that reject the constituent elements, and then to further instruct it to extract the parts of the constituent elements that are rejected by the content of each cited reference. Alternatively, for example, the prompt input to the generation model 30 can be used to instruct it to generate the correspondence data in the format of the comparison table file of Modified Example 1, and to obtain the correspondence data as the comparison table file of Modified Example 1.

[0069] Furthermore, while Modification 1 described an example of extracting parts of the constituent elements that are refuted by the content of the cited document, it is also acceptable to highlight the parts of the constituent elements that are refuted by the content of the cited document. In other words, the sub-item "Relevant Part" may contain the constituent elements described in the item "This Invention" as they are, and the parts of the listed constituent elements that are refuted by the content of the cited document may be highlighted. Specific methods of highlighting include, but are not limited to, bolding, underlining, italicizing, and adding color or highlighting.

[0070] (Modification 2) Modification 2 describes a method for making it easier to identify the parts of the cited document that are cited as grounds for rejecting the constituent elements that are highly relevant to those constituent elements. In Modification 2, the differences from the above embodiment will be mainly explained, and explanations of parts that are the same as the above embodiment will be omitted.

[0071] In the comparison table file of Modification Example 1, the parts of the content listed under the "References" item that are highly relevant to the constituent elements being compared are highlighted. In other words, in the comparison table file of Modification Example 1, the parts of the content listed in each of the one or more second items that are highly relevant to the constituent elements listed in the first item are highlighted. The specific method of highlighting is the same as in Modification Example 1.

[0072] Figure 14 shows an example of a comparison table file for Modification Example 2. In the comparison table file shown in Figure 14, the parts of the content in each cell of each item's "References" that are highly relevant to the constituent elements being compared are underlined and highlighted.

[0073] In this modified version 2 comparison table file, the parts of the cited document that are used as grounds to negate the constituent elements that are most relevant to those elements are highlighted, making it easier for the user to understand which parts of the cited document are used to negate the constituent elements.

[0074] Furthermore, the extraction of portions from the cited document that negate the constituent elements can be achieved, for example, by the formatting unit 107 of Modified Example 2 using natural language processing or the like to extract portions from the cited document whose similarity to the constituent elements exceeds a threshold. Alternatively, for example, the prompt input to the generation model 30 may instruct it to extract portions of the cited document that negate the constituent elements, and then to further extract portions from those portions that have a high relevance to the constituent elements. Alternatively, for example, the prompt input to the generation model 30 may instruct it to generate the correspondence data in the format of the comparison table file of Modified Example 2, and obtain the correspondence data as the comparison table file of Modified Example 2.

[0075] (Variation 3) Modification 3 describes a method for evaluating the validity of the content of the cited document, which was used as the basis for denying the constituent elements, in determining the patentability of the claimed invention. In Modification 3, the parts that differ from the above embodiment will be mainly explained, and the parts that are the same as the above embodiment will not be explained.

[0076] In Modification 3, the prompts input to the generation model 30 instruct the model to extract the content of the cited document that negates the constituent element, and then further instruct it to evaluate the validity of that content in determining the patentability of the claimed invention in relation to that constituent element. For example, the evaluation of validity could involve outputting "○" if the constituent element is a concept that includes the content, "×" if the constituent element is a concept that does not include the content, or "△" if it is uncertain whether the constituent element is a concept that includes the content or not, but is not limited to these. Therefore, in the correspondence data of Modification 3, each of the one or more constituent elements is further associated with the evaluation results of the validity of the content of the relevant section of one or more documents.

[0077] In Modification 3, a sub-item is added to the "Cited Literature" item in the comparison table file format. Specifically, the "Cited Literature" item includes an item "Relevant Description" (an example of the third item) which lists the paragraph number and content of the cited literature used as evidence to negate the constituent element being compared, and an item "Evaluation Result" (an example of the fifth item) which describes the validity of the content of the "Relevant Description" item in relation to the constituent element being compared. In other words, in the format of Modification 3, each of the one or more second items further includes a third item which lists the content of the corresponding section of one or more literatures, and a fifth item which describes the evaluation result indicating the validity of the content of the relevant section in the third item in relation to the constituent element described in the first item.

[0078] The formatting unit 107 of Modified Example 3 generates a comparison table file by, for example, extracting the corresponding parts from the correspondence data of Modified Example 3 described above and placing them as actual data in each cell of the comparison table file format of Modified Example 3 described above.

[0079] Figure 15 shows an example of a comparison table file for Modification Example 3. The comparison table file shown in Figure 15 was generated when the formatting unit 107 of Modification Example 3 formatted the correspondence data of Modification Example 3 using the format of Modification Example 3. The item "The Invention" describes each of the explained constituent elements. In the sub-item "Relevant Description" of each "Reference Document" in the item, if there is grounds to negate the constituent element being compared, the paragraph number and content of the reference document that is used as grounds are described. In the sub-item "Evaluation Result" of each "Reference Document" in the item, the validity of the content described in the sub-item "Relevant Description" with respect to the constituent elements described in the item "The Invention".

[0080] For example, cell 411 describes "a first means for acquiring AAA information" as constituent element 1A, which is constituent element A of claim 1 in the present invention. On the other hand, cell 413 describes "acquiring AAA information" as the content of paragraph

[0016] of cited document 1, which was used as the basis for rejecting constituent element 1A. Thus, constituent element 1A is a concept that includes the content of paragraph

[0016] of cited document 1 described in cell 413. For this reason, cell 415 shows "○" as the result of evaluating the validity of the content of cited document 1 described in cell 413 with respect to constituent element 1A described in cell 411.

[0081] For example, cell 421 describes "a second means for acquiring BBB information" as constituent element 1B, which is constituent element B of claim 1 in the present invention. On the other hand, cell 423 describes the contents of paragraphs

[0020] and

[0021] of cited document 2, which were used as grounds for rejecting constituent element 1B, as "acquiring FFF information" and "FFF information includes BBB" information". Here, we assume that "BBB information" is a concept that does not include "BBB" information", and that constituent element 1B is a concept that does not include the contents of paragraphs

[0020] and

[0021] of cited document 2 described in cell 423. For this reason, cell 425 shows "×" as the result of evaluating the validity of the contents of cited document 2 described in cell 423 with respect to constituent element 1B described in cell 421.

[0082] As shown above, the comparison table file in Modification Example 3 displays the validity of the content of each cited document in relation to the constituent elements of the invention. Therefore, according to Modification Example 3, users considering the patentability of an invention can more easily assess its patentability based on objective facts such as the constituent elements of the invention and the content of the cited documents.

[0083] Alternatively, the prompt input to the generation model 30 may instruct it to generate the correspondence data in the format of the comparison table file shown in Modification Example 3, thereby obtaining the correspondence data as the comparison table file shown in Modification Example 3.

[0084] (Modification 4) Modification 4 describes a method for including the examiner's judgment in the comparison table file. In Modification 4, the differences from the above embodiment will be mainly explained, and the parts that are the same as the above embodiment will not be explained.

[0085] In Modification 4, the prompts input to the generation model 30 instruct the model to extract, for each of the separated constituent elements, the content of the patentability judgment made based on the content of the relevant sections of one or more cited documents from the notice of reasons for rejection. Therefore, in the correspondence data of Modification 4, the content of the patentability judgment made based on the content of the relevant sections of one or more cited documents is further associated with each of the one or more constituent elements.

[0086] In Modification 4, an additional item, "Judgment Content," is added to the comparison table file format. The "Judgment Content" item is an item (an example of a sixth item) that describes the content of the patentability judgment made based on the content of the relevant sections of one or more cited documents for the constituent elements being compared. In other words, the format describes the content of the patentability judgment made based on the content of the relevant sections described in one or more second items for the constituent elements described in the first item.

[0087] The formatting unit 107 of Modified Example 4 generates a comparison table file by, for example, extracting the corresponding parts from the correspondence data of Modified Example 4 described above and placing them as actual data in each cell of the comparison table file format of Modified Example 4 described above.

[0088] Figure 16 shows an example of a comparison table file for Modification Example 4. The comparison table file shown in Figure 16 was generated when the formatting unit 107 of Modification Example 4 formatted the correspondence data of Modification Example 4 using the format of Modification Example 4. The item "Judgment Content" contains the content of the examiner's patentability judgment (the content of the remarks in the notice of reasons for rejection) based on the content described in each "Reference Document" for the constituent elements described in the item "The Invention".

[0089] As shown above, in the comparison table file of Modification 4, for each constituent element, in addition to the content of the cited document that was used as the basis for rejecting that constituent element, the content of the examiner's judgment on patentability based on that content is displayed. Therefore, according to Modification 4, if the user considering the patentability of the invention is an advanced user who can conduct the examination without being influenced by the judgment of others such as examiners, it is possible to easily perform a more advanced examination by taking into account not only the objective facts of the constituent elements of the invention and the content of the cited document, but also the judgment of others such as examiners.

[0090] Alternatively, the prompt input to the generation model 30 may instruct it to generate the correspondence data in the format of the comparison table file shown in Modification 4, thereby obtaining the correspondence data as the comparison table file shown in Modification 4.

[0091] (Variation 5) Modification 5 describes an example of obtaining correspondence data using multiple prompts. In Modification 5, the differences from the above embodiment will be mainly described, and the parts that are the same as the above embodiment will not be explained.

[0092] Specifically, in Modification 5, an example is described in which the prompts described in the above embodiment are configured to include a first prompt that breaks down the invention into constituent elements, a second prompt that extracts the cited documents and their relevant sections that were used as grounds for rejecting the constituent elements, and a third prompt that extracts the content of the relevant sections of the cited documents that were used as grounds for rejecting the constituent elements.

[0093] Figure 17 shows an example of the first prompt 501 and the response 503 to the first prompt 501 of Modification 5. As shown in Figure 17, the first prompt 501 is a prompt to break down the invention into one or more constituent elements. The receiving unit 101 of Modification 5 receives the first prompt 501, and the input unit 103 of Modification 5 inputs the first prompt 501 to the generation model 30, so that the output data acquisition unit 105 of Modification 5 acquires the response 503, and the output unit 109 of Modification 5 outputs the response 503. As shown in Figure 17, in the response 503, the claims included in the first prompt 501 are broken down into constituent elements separated by stage directions, and each broken-down constituent element is assigned a sequential number.

[0094] Figure 18 shows an example of the second prompt 511 and the response 513 to the second prompt 511 in Modification 5. The second prompt 511 is input to the generation model 30 immediately after the response 503 described in Figure 17, and it is assumed that there is continuity between the response 503 and the second prompt 511.

[0095] As shown in Figure 18, the second prompt 511 is attached to the notice of reasons for rejection 51 and prompts the user to refer to the notice of reasons for rejection 51 and extract the cited documents and their paragraph numbers that were used as grounds for rejecting each of the constituent elements explained in response 503. In other words, for each of the one or more constituent elements, the second prompt 511 is prompts the user to extract, from the second document data containing the results of the patentability judgment, the document identification information of one or more documents that contain the content of the relevant section, and at least the relevant section information.

[0096] In Modified Example 5, the reception unit 101 receives the second prompt 511, and the input unit 103 of Modified Example 5 inputs the second prompt 511 to the generation model 30. As a result, the output data acquisition unit 105 of Modified Example 5 obtains the response 513, and the output unit 109 of Modified Example 5 outputs the response 513. As shown in Figure 18, in the response 513, for each constituent element explained in the response 503, the names of the cited documents that were used as grounds for rejecting the constituent element and the paragraph numbers in which their contents are described are extracted from the notice of reasons for rejection 51 and associated with them.

[0097] Figure 19 shows an example of the third prompt 521 in Modification 5. It is assumed that the third prompt 521 is input to the generation model 30 immediately after the answer 513 described in Figure 18, and that there is continuity between the answer 513 and the third prompt 521.

[0098] As shown in Figure 19, the third prompt 521 includes references 53 and 55 and prompts the user to refer to references 53 and 55 and extract the content corresponding to the paragraph number of the reference identified in response 513. In other words, for each of the one or more constituent elements, the third prompt 521 prompts the user to extract the content corresponding to the relevant section indicated by the relevant section information from the reference indicated by the reference identification information.

[0099] In Modified Example 5, the receiving unit 101 receives the third prompt 521, and the input unit 103 of Modified Example 5 inputs the third prompt 521 to the generation model 30. As a result, the output data acquisition unit 105 of Modified Example 5 acquires the corresponding data shown in Figure 9, which is the answer, and the output unit 109 of Modified Example 5 outputs the corresponding data.

[0100] As shown in Modification 5, the prompts are divided into multiple steps, and the user is allowed to confirm the intermediate steps while the generation model 30 generates the mapping data. This prevents unintended errors, such as hallucinations, from being included in the mapping data. Examples of hallucinations include the inability to extract all paragraph numbers from the rejection notice (missing paragraph numbers).

[0101] Furthermore, if the notice of rejection includes not only the paragraph number of the cited document that the examiner used as the basis for denying the constituent elements, but also at least part of the content of that paragraph, the second prompt may also prompt the extraction of that content. In other words, if the second document data also includes the content of the relevant section, the second prompt may further prompt the extraction of that content.

[0102] In this case, the third prompt may instruct the user to supplement or correct the content extracted from the notice of reasons for rejection by the second prompt with content extracted from the cited document. In other words, the third prompt may instruct the user to supplement or correct the content of the relevant section extracted from the second document data with content extracted from the relevant section of the document indicated by the document identification information.

[0103] As a supplement, for example, if the information extracted from the notice of reasons for rejection only covers a portion of the information in the paragraph number of the cited document, the remaining information may be supplemented. Furthermore, in the comparison table file, it is acceptable to display the information extracted from the notice of reasons for rejection and the information supplemented from the cited document in a way that distinguishes them.

[0104] For example, proofreading can involve correcting or overwriting content extracted from a rejection notice with content from the paragraph numbers in the cited references if there is a discrepancy between the content extracted from the rejection notice and the content in the paragraph numbers in the cited references.

[0105] (Experimental variation 6) In the above embodiment, the generative model 30 may be instructed to infer whether there are any differences between the invention and the cited documents, and to provide counterarguments to those differences.

[0106] In variation 6, the prompt may include a fourth prompt for each of the one or more constituent elements, prompting the user to infer whether there are any differences between the content of the relevant section and the actual content, and the reasons for those differences. Furthermore, if there are differences, the prompt may include a fifth prompt for the user to infer whether a counterargument is possible and, if so, the content of that counterargument.

[0107] A fourth prompt could, for example, be something like, "For each constituent element, compare the present invention with the cited document and output whether there are any differences and, if so, the reasons for those differences." The response from the generation model 30 to the input of the fourth prompt could, for example, be something like, "Cited document 2 does not contain any description corresponding to the BBB information of constituent element 1B."

[0108] A fifth prompt could be, for example, "Consider whether there is room for rebuttal to the differences mentioned above, and if so, output the reasons for the rebuttal." The generative model 30's response to the input of the fifth prompt could be, for example, "Cited document 2 does not contain any description corresponding to the BBB information of constituent element 1B, so it appears there is room for rebuttal."

[0109] Furthermore, the fourth and fifth prompts described above may be integrated and the output content specified to create a prompt as shown in Figure 20. Figure 20 shows an example of a prompt in Modification 6. The output content may include, for example, as shown in Figure 20, specifying, "The details of the differences are whether or not the combination or substitution of the configurations is easy," followed by specifying, "<Whether or not there are differences between the present invention and the invention described in the main reference>", "<Details of the differences (where in the reference the configuration is shown)>", "<If the differences are shown in the reference and multiple references are cited, whether or not there are commonalities in the implications, problems, effects, and functions, and whether or not there are factors that hinder combination>", and "<If the combination is easy, or if the differences are not shown in the reference, is it possible to see an effect greater than expected from the present invention?>". In this way, by specifying the output content in a sequential manner and becoming more detailed as the stage progresses, a highly accurate response can be expected from the generation model 30.

[0110] (Example 7) In the above embodiment, prompts may be created using RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation). RAG is a method for causing the generative model 30 to respond based on the contents of a pre-specified document or database.

[0111] For example, suppose the receiving unit 101 of Modification Example 7 receives a prompt that includes instructions for generating mapping data in the generation model 30, as well as text data of the claims included in the first document data, and includes the second document data as attached data (attached file). In this case, the receiving unit 101 (an example of a creation unit) of Modification Example 7 refers to the second document data, extracts the paragraph numbers of the cited documents pointed out in the second document data, extracts (searches) the content of the extracted paragraph numbers as context from one or more document data, and includes it in the prompt. In other words, the receiving unit 101 of Modification Example 7 uses the relevant location information included in the second document data to extract the content of the relevant locations from one or more documents and creates a prompt. Note that the instructions for generating mapping data in the generation model 30 instruct the unit to extract the content of the paragraph numbers of the cited documents from this context, rather than from the cited documents themselves.

[0112] This allows for handling situations where attaching citations to a prompt would exceed the prompt's input limit. While Modification Example 7 describes an example of RAG conversion of bibliographic data, the method is not limited to this; first document data or second document data may also be converted to RAG.

[0113] (Variation 8) In the above embodiment, a prompt may be created by obtaining document data from a patent database. For example, suppose the receiving unit 101 in Modification 8 receives a prompt that includes, in addition to instructions for generating correspondence data for the generation model 30, text data of the claims included in the first document data, and the second document data as attached data (attached file). In this case, the receiving unit 101 in Modification 7 (an example of an input data acquisition unit) may refer to the second document data, obtain the cited documents pointed out in the second document data from the patent database, and include them in the prompt. In other words, the receiving unit 101 in Modification 8 may obtain at least one document from a database managing patent information based on the document identification information included in the second document data.

[0114] (Extreme variation 9) In the above embodiment, the first document data may be obtained from a patent database to create a prompt. For example, suppose the receiving unit 101 of Modification 9 receives a prompt that includes, in addition to instructions for generating mapping data for the generation model 30, the second document data and one or more literature data as attached data (attached files). In this case, the receiving unit 101 of Modification 9 (an example of an input data acquisition unit and a creation unit) may refer to the second document data, obtain the published patent gazette for the patent application number indicated in the second document data from the patent database, extract the claims, and include them in the prompt. In other words, the receiving unit 101 of Modification 9 may obtain the first document data from at least a database managing patent information based on the first document identification information contained in the second document data, extract text to identify the invention, and create a prompt.

[0115] (Variation 10) In the above embodiment, the invention claimed to be included in the prompt may be explained in constituent elements from the beginning.

[0116] (Variation 11) In the above embodiments and their variations, the example of implementing the generation model 30 as a cloud service was used for explanation, but the generation model 30 may also be included in the information processing device 10. In this case, the generation model 30 can be implemented, for example, as an AI chat service that fine-tunes a small language model (SLM).

[0117] (program) The programs executed by the information processing devices of the above embodiments and each of the above modifications are provided in installable or executable file format, stored on a computer-readable storage medium such as a CD-ROM, CD-R, memory card, DVD, or flexible disk (FD).

[0118] Furthermore, the programs executed by the information processing devices of the above embodiments and their respective modifications may be stored on a computer connected to a network such as the Internet and provided by allowing downloads via the network. Alternatively, the programs executed by the information processing devices of the above embodiments and their respective modifications may be provided or distributed via a network such as the Internet. Furthermore, the programs executed by the information processing devices of the above embodiments and their respective modifications may be pre-installed in ROM or the like and provided.

[0119] The programs executed in the information processing devices of the above embodiments and their respective modifications are configured as modules for realizing the above-described parts on a computer. In actual hardware, for example, the CPU reads the program from the HDD into RAM and executes it, thereby realizing the above-described parts on the computer.

[0120] The above embodiments and their respective modifications are merely examples of how this disclosure may be implemented, and they do not restrict the technical scope of this disclosure. Therefore, this disclosure can be implemented in various ways without departing from its essence or its main features. For example, the above embodiments and their respective modifications may be combined as appropriate on a component basis. Also, for example, some components may be removed from the total components in the above embodiments and their respective modifications.

[0121] This disclosure also includes the following aspects:

[0122] (1) An input unit that inputs prompts into the generation model to generate correspondence data that associates each of the one or more constituent elements that make up the invention with the content of the relevant sections of one or more documents that were used as the basis for the patentability judgment in the document data that describes the result of the patentability judgment, An output data acquisition unit that acquires the correspondence data from the generation model, An output unit that outputs based on the aforementioned correspondence data, An information processing device equipped with the following features.

[0123] (2) The formatting unit further comprises a formatting unit that formats the correspondence data and generates a comparison table file in which each of the one or more constituent elements and the content of the corresponding section of the one or more documents are compared in a table format, The output unit outputs the comparison table file. The information processing device described in (1) above.

[0124] (3) The correspondence data is text data having a table structure, and is data that can be converted into a table format that compares each of the one or more constituent elements with the content of the corresponding section of the one or more documents. The information processing device described in (1) above.

[0125] (4) The comparison table file comprises a first item in which the constituent requirements are described, and one or more second items corresponding to each of the one or more documents, Each of the above two items shall contain the content of the corresponding section of the above one or more documents. The information processing device described in (2) above.

[0126] (5) The comparison table file does not include the content of the patentability determination. The information processing device described in (4) above.

[0127] (6) Each of the one or more second items further includes a third item which contains the content of the corresponding section of the document among the one or more documents, and a fourth item which contains or highlights the portion of the constituent elements described in the first item that was used as the basis for determining patentability, based on the content of the corresponding section described in the third item. The information processing device described in (4) above.

[0128] (7) In the comparison table file, the portion of the content of the corresponding section described in each of the one or more second items that is highly related to the constituent requirements described in the first item is highlighted. The information processing device described in (4) above.

[0129] (8) The corresponding data is further associated with the evaluation results obtained by evaluating the validity of the content of the relevant section of the one or more documents, for each of the one or more constituent elements. Each of the one or more second items further includes a third item which contains the content of the corresponding section of the document among the one or more documents, and a fifth item which contains the evaluation result indicating the validity of the content of the corresponding section described in the third item to the constituent elements described in the first item. The information processing device described in (4) above.

[0130] (9) The corresponding data is further associated with the content of the patentability judgment made based on the content of the relevant section of one or more documents for each of the one or more constituent elements, The comparison table file further includes a sixth item which describes the content of the patentability judgment made based on the content of the corresponding section described in each of the one or more second items, with respect to the constituent element described in the first item. The information processing device described in (4) above.

[0131] (10) The prompt includes a first prompt for causing the invention to be broken down into one or more constituent elements, The information processing device described in (1) above.

[0132] (11) The prompt includes, for each of the one or more constituent elements, a second prompt for causing the extraction of document identification information that identifies each of the one or more documents containing the content of the relevant section from the second document data containing the results of the patentability determination, and at least relevant section information indicating the relevant section. The information processing device described in (10) above.

[0133] (12) The prompt includes a third prompt for each of the one or more constituent elements to extract the content of the relevant section indicated by the relevant section information from the document indicated by the document identification information, The information processing device described in (11) above.

[0134] (13) If the second prompt also includes the content of the relevant section in the second document data, the second prompt will cause the content to be further extracted. The information processing device described in (11) above.

[0135] (14) The prompt includes a third prompt for each of the one or more constituent elements to extract the content of the relevant section indicated by the relevant section information from the document indicated by the document identification information, The third prompt causes the content of the relevant section extracted from the second document data to be supplemented or corrected with the content of the relevant section extracted from the document indicated by the document identification information. The information processing device described in (13) above.

[0136] (15) The prompt includes a fourth prompt for each of the one or more constituent elements to cause inference about whether there are any differences with the content of the relevant section and the reasons for those differences, An information processing device as described in any one of the above items (10) to (14).

[0137] (16) If there are differences, the prompt includes a fifth prompt to infer whether a counterargument is possible and, if possible, the content of the counterargument. The information processing device described in (15) above.

[0138] (17) The prompt describes or refers to the contents of a first document data containing a sentence specifying the invention, a second document data containing the results of the patentability determination, and one or more document data indicating each of the one or more documents. The information processing device described in (1) above.

[0139] (18) The second document data includes relevant location information indicating the relevant section of the one or more documents, The system further includes a creation unit that uses the aforementioned relevant section information to extract the content of the relevant section from one or more documents and create the prompt. The information processing device described in (17) above.

[0140] (19) The second document data includes document identification information that identifies each of the one or more documents, The system further includes an input data acquisition unit that acquires at least one of the aforementioned documents from a database managing patent information based on the aforementioned document identification information. The information processing device described in (17) above.

[0141] (20) The second document data includes first document identification information that identifies the first document data, An input data acquisition unit that acquires the first document data from at least a database managing patent information based on the first document identification information, The invention further comprises a creation unit that extracts text for specifying the invention from the first document data and creates the prompt, The information processing device described in (17) above.

[0142] (21) Input step of inputting prompts into the generation model to generate correspondence data in which the content of the relevant sections of the document data that was used as the basis for the patentability judgment in the document data that describes the result of the patentability judgment is associated with each of the one or more constituent elements that describe the invention, The output data acquisition unit performs an output data acquisition step in which it acquires the corresponding data from the generation model, The output unit performs an output step that outputs based on the correspondence data, Information processing methods including

[0143] (22) An input step of inputting a prompt into the generation model to generate mapping data that associates each of the one or more constituent elements that describe the invention with the content of the relevant sections of one or more documents that were used as the basis for the patentability judgment in the document data describing the result of the patentability judgment, An output data acquisition step of acquiring the corresponding data from the generation model, An output step that outputs based on the aforementioned correspondence data, A program that causes a computer to execute something. [Explanation of symbols]

[0144] 1. Information Processing System 2 Network 10 Information Processing Devices 11 Control device 12 Main storage 13 Auxiliary storage device 14. Communication equipment 15 Input device 16 Display device 19 Various types of buses 30 Generative Models 101 Reception Department 103 Input section 105 Data acquisition unit for output 107 Plastic Surgery Department 109 Output section

Claims

1. An input unit inputs prompts into a generation model to generate correspondence data that associates each of the constituent elements with the extracted content of the relevant sections, after dividing the invention into constituent elements, extracting the reasons for the patentability judgment from document data that contains the results of the patentability judgment for each segmented constituent element, and referring to the documents used in the patentability judgment to extract the content of the relevant sections that form the basis of the patentability judgment. An output data acquisition unit that acquires the correspondence data from the generation model, An information processing device equipped with the following features.

2. A formatting unit that formats the aforementioned correspondence data and generates a comparison table file in which each of the aforementioned constituent requirements and the extracted content of the corresponding section are compared in a table format, The system further comprises an output unit that outputs the comparison table file, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.

3. The aforementioned correspondence data is text data having a table structure, and is data that can be converted into a table format that compares each of the constituent elements with the content of the extracted corresponding section. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.

4. The comparison table file comprises a first item in which the constituent requirements are described, and one or more second items corresponding to each of the one or more documents. Each of the above two items shall contain the content of the corresponding section of the document among the above one or more documents. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2.

5. The aforementioned comparison table file does not include the content of the patentability determination. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4.

6. Each of the one or more second items further includes a third item in which the content of the corresponding section of the one or more documents is described, and a fourth item in which the portion of the constituent elements described in the first item that was used as the basis for determining patentability is described in the third item. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4.

7. In the comparison table file, the portion of the content of the corresponding section described in each of the one or more second items that has a high degree of relevance to the constituent requirements described in the first item is highlighted. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4.

8. The aforementioned correspondence data is further associated with evaluation results that assess the validity of the content of the extracted relevant section for each of the aforementioned constituent requirements. Each of the one or more second items further includes a third item which contains the content of the corresponding section of the document among the one or more documents, and a fifth item which contains the evaluation result indicating the validity of the content of the corresponding section described in the third item with respect to the constituent elements described in the first item. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4.

9. The aforementioned correspondence data is further associated with the content of the patentability judgment made based on the extracted content of the relevant section, for each of the aforementioned constituent elements. The comparison table file further includes a sixth item which describes the content of the patentability judgment made based on the content of the corresponding section described in each of the one or more second items, with respect to the constituent element described in the first item. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4.

10. The prompt includes a first prompt for causing the invention to be broken down into its constituent elements. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.

11. The prompt includes, for each of the constituent elements, a second prompt for extracting document identification information that identifies one or more of the documents containing the content of the relevant section from the document data containing the results of the patentability determination, and information indicating at least the relevant section. The information processing apparatus according to claim 10.

12. The aforementioned prompt includes a third prompt for each of the aforementioned constituent elements, which causes the content of the relevant section indicated by the relevant section information to be extracted from the document indicated by the document identification information. The information processing apparatus according to claim 11.

13. The second prompt, if the document data also includes the content of the relevant section, will further extract that content. The information processing apparatus according to claim 11.

14. The aforementioned prompt includes a third prompt for each of the aforementioned constituent elements, which causes the content of the relevant section indicated by the relevant section information to be extracted from the document indicated by the document identification information. The third prompt causes the content of the relevant section extracted from the document data to be supplemented or corrected with the content of the relevant section extracted from the document indicated by the document identification information. The information processing apparatus according to claim 13.

15. The aforementioned prompt includes a fourth prompt for causing the user to infer whether there are any differences between each of the constituent elements and the content described in the relevant section, and the reasons for those differences. The information processing apparatus according to any one of claims 10 to 14.

16. The aforementioned prompt includes a fifth prompt to infer whether a counterargument is possible and, if possible, the content of the counterargument, if there is a difference. The information processing apparatus according to claim 15.

17. The prompt describes or refers to the contents of a first document data containing a sentence specifying the invention, a second document data which is the document data containing the results of the patentability judgment, and one or more document data indicating one or more of the aforementioned documents. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.

18. The second document data includes relevant location information indicating the relevant section of the one or more documents, The system further includes a creation unit that uses the aforementioned relevant section information to extract the content of the relevant section from one or more documents and create the prompt. The information processing apparatus according to claim 17.

19. The second document data includes document identification information that identifies each of the one or more documents, The system further includes an input data acquisition unit that acquires at least one of the aforementioned documents from a database managing patent information based on the aforementioned document identification information. The information processing apparatus according to claim 17.

20. The second document data includes first document identification information that identifies the first document data, An input data acquisition unit that acquires the first document data from at least a database managing patent information based on the first document identification information, The system further comprises a creation unit that extracts text for specifying the invention from the first document data and creates the prompt, The information processing apparatus according to claim 17.

21. The input step involves inputting prompts into the generation model to cause the input unit to divide the invention into constituent elements, extract the reasons for the patentability judgment from document data containing the results of the patentability judgment for each segmented constituent element, extract the content of the relevant sections that form the basis of the patentability judgment by referring to the documents used in the patentability judgment, and generate correspondence data that associates each of the constituent elements with the extracted content of the relevant sections. The output data acquisition unit performs an output data acquisition step in which it acquires the corresponding data from the generation model, Information processing methods including

22. The input step involves inputting prompts into the generation model to generate mapping data that associates each of the constituent elements with the extracted content of the relevant sections, extracting the reasons for the patentability judgment from document data that contains the results of the patentability judgment for each segmented constituent element, referring to the documents used in the patentability judgment to extract the content of the relevant sections that form the basis of the patentability judgment, and so on. An output data acquisition step of acquiring the corresponding data from the generation model, A program that causes a computer to execute something.

Images