US4829426A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Computer-implemented expert system and method for decision-making
Assignee: Mynd Corp
•
Filing: 1986-05-16
•
Granted: 1989-05-09
•
Expires: 2006-05-16
Abstract
Abstract This invention relates to an expert system and method for decision making using computer generated paramorphic models of an expert's decisional process.
Inventors
- 👤 F. N. Burt
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-10-29 00:50
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06N; G06N5/00; G06N5/04
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 31
Claim 1
Independent Claim
202 words
A method for making decisions within a problem sphere comprising steps performed by a computer of: (a) defining a logical sphere of the problem by capturing descriptive information according to questions having a type parameter and at least one reference parameter supplied and defined by an expert who acts as a mentor; (b) deriving from an answer to each question an intermediate judgment by comparing that answer to any reference parameters of the question; (c) defining a situation to be a set of intermediate judgments for all questions and one or more associated interpretations for all questions; (d) collecting and storing a set of situations which are unique in that no other situation has an identical combination of intermediate judgments; (e) assessing relative logical importance of each questions; (f) subdividing the questions into classes of major importance and minor importance; (g) presenting an example defined as answers to all the questions; (h) generating a situation from the example of step (g) and comparing that example situation to the set of unique situations stored in step (d); and (i) reporting those unique situations and their associated interpretations which are logically most similar in a fraction of their intermediate judgments to the example situation.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
202 words
A method for making decisions within a problem sphere comprising steps performed by a computer of: (a) defining a logical sphere of the problem by capturing descriptive information according to questions having a type parameter and at least one reference parameter supplied and defined by an expert who acts as a mentor; (b) deriving from an answer to each question an intermediate judgment by comparing that answer to any reference parameters of the question; (c) defining a situation to be a set of intermediate judgments for all questions and one or more associated interpretations for all questions; (d) collecting and storing a set of situations which are unique in that no other situation has an identical combination of intermediate judgments; (e) assessing relative logical importance of each questions; (f) subdividing the questions into classes of major importance and minor importance; (g) presenting an example defined as answers to all the questions; (h) generating a situation from the example of step (g) and comparing that example situation to the set of unique situations stored in step (d); and (i) reporting those unique situations and their associated interpretations which are logically most similar in a fraction of their intermediate judgments to the example situation.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
29 words
The method of claim 1 wherein step (d) comprises associating with each of said intermediate judgments an interpretation of said logical significance of observed changes in each intermediate judgment.
Claim 4
Independent Claim
173 words
A method for making decisions within a problem sphere comprising steps performed by a computer of: (a) defining a logical sphere of the problem by capturing descriptive information according to questions having a type parameter and at least one reference parameter supplied and defined by an expert who acts as a mentor; (b) deriving from an answer to each question an intermediate judgment by comparing that answer to a reference parameter of the question; (c) defining a situation to be a set of intermediate judgments for all questions and the associated interpretation supplied by the mentor; (d) assessing relative logical importance of each question; (e) subdividing the questions into classes of major importance and minor importance; (f) presenting an example defined as answers to all the questions; (g) generating a situation from the example of step (f) and comparing that example situation to previously encountered situations and; (h) reporting those previously encountered situations and their associated interpretations which are logically most similar in a fraction of their intermediate judgments to the example situation.
Claim 5
Independent Claim
173 words
A method for making decisions within a problem sphere comprising steps performed by a computer of: (a) defining a logical sphere of the problem by capturing descriptive information according to questions having a type parameter and at least one reference parameter supplied and defined by an expert who acts as a mentor; (b) deriving from an answer to each question an intermediate judgment by comparing that answer to a reference parameter of the question; (c) defining a situation to be a set of intermediate judgments for all questions and the associated interpretation supplied by the mentor; (d) assessing relative logical importance of each question; (e) subdividing the questions into classes of major importance and minor importance; (f) presenting an example defined as answers to all the questions; (g) generating a situation from the example of step (f) and comparing that example situation to previously encountered situations and; (h) reporting those previously encountered situations and their associated interpretations which are logically most similar in a fraction of their intermediate judgments to the example situation.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
14 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said descriptive information is a numerically described value.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
14 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said descriptive information is an ordinally described value.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
14 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said descriptive information is a Boolean (true/false) value.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said descriptive information is membership in a predefined set.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
20 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said descriptive information is a degree of similarity to a predefined pattern or structure.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
17 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said descriptive information is a date, time or period of time.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
26 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said descriptive information is calculated or derived from supplied data by application of a mentor-specified formula to said supplied data.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
26 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of capturing said descriptive information is performed by interactive questioning of a human with knowledge of said information.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
43 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of capturing said descriptive information is performed by directly interfacing the practitioner of the method to a data acquisition system chosen to provide required information by accessing previously stored data, or by transducing physical phenomena.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
16 words
The method of claim 3 wherein step (h) includes reporting in rank order of logical similarity.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
31 words
The method of claim 3 wherein step (h) includes rendering a decision by reporting the associated interpretation of the previously encountered situation which is most logically similar to the example situation.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
13 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said reference parameter is a numeric value.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim
13 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said reference parameter comprises a numeric range.
Claim 19
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said reference parameter comprises a plurality of numeric ranges.
Claim 20
Dependent Claim
13 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said reference parameter comprises a Boolean value.
Claim 21
Dependent Claim
13 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said reference parameter comprises a predefined set.
Claim 22
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 3 wherein said reference parameter comprises a predefined pattern or structure.
Claim 23
Dependent Claim
39 words
The method of claim 3 wherein step (d) comprises comparing a proportion of previously encountered situations which are logically distinguishable only by reference to a particular intermediate judgment to a total number of intermediate judgments within said problem sphere.
Claim 24
Dependent Claim
45 words
The method of claim 3 wherein step (d) comprises comparing a proportion of previously encountered situations which are logically distinguishable only by reference to a particular intermediate judgment to a total number of intermediate judgments within a class of intermediate judgments within said problem sphere.
Claim 25
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 22 wherein said class is the intermediate judgments of major importance.
Claim 26
Dependent Claim
23 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of generating a situation (g) comprises classifying said answers as being either present or absent.
Claim 27
Dependent Claim
26 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of generating a situation (g) comprises classifying said answers as being either below or above a mentor-supplied value.
Claim 28
Dependent Claim
29 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of generating a situation (g) comprises classifying said answers as being either within or outside of a mentorsupplied range of values.
Claim 29
Dependent Claim
26 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of generating a situation (g) comprises classifying said answers as being either above or below a mentor-supplied range.
Claim 30
Dependent Claim
27 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of generating a situation (g) comprises classifying said answers as being either matching or not matching a mentorsupplied pattern.
Claim 31
Dependent Claim
23 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of generating a situation (g) comprises classifying said answers as being either true or false.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US4595982A
Cited
US4648044A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 1992-05-08 | 1992-11-07 | 1993-05-09 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 1996-05-08 | 1996-11-07 | 1997-05-09 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2000-05-08 | 2000-11-07 | 2001-05-09 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |