Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “correct rate” in claims 26 and 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “correct rate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “rate” is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “correct”.
For examination purposes: The term “correct rate” will be interpreted as a rate falling within a corresponding stationary state section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the "recording medium having a computer program" is not defined in the specification as being non-transitory.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-16, 20-23, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“divide the time series waveform data of the objective variable into a plurality of first sections based on a plurality of stationary state values”
“generate, based on the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable and the time series waveform data of the objective variable, a plurality of prediction models respectively corresponding to the plurality of first sections, each prediction model associating the explanatory variable at a first time with the objective variable at a second time that is later than the first time, the first and second times being defined by a prediction time period”
“evaluate a plurality of prediction models for each of the plurality of first sections based on a correct rate calculated by whether a predicted value falls within a corresponding stationary state section”
“select one prediction model for each first section based on the correct rate”
“identify at least one part, in the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable stored in the memory, that matches the prediction data of the explanatory variable based on a distance metric”
“determine, from among the plurality of first sections, a selected first section including a fourth time after the prediction time period from a fifth time being a time of the matching part”
“predict the objective variable at a sixth time after the prediction time period from the future time from the future time”
“generate a power generation plan of a hydroelectric power plant for a period including the sixth time based on the prediction value of the objective variable”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“An information processing device, comprising: at least one memory storing time series waveform data of an objective variable, the objective variable being related to a volume of stored water at a hydroelectric power plant during a given time period, time series waveform data of an explanatory variable, the explanatory variable being related to an amount regarding weather during the given time period, and prediction data including a predicted value of the explanatory variable at a future time after the given time period”
“first processing circuitry configured to:”
“input the prediction value of the explanatory variable at the future time indicated by the predictive data into the prediction model corresponding to the selected first section”
“second processing circuitry configured to”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“read out the time series waveform data of the objective variable and the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable from the memory”
“output a control signal for controlling supply and demand of electricity to consumers supplied with the power from the hydroelectric power plant based on the power generation plan and a desired amount of power generation”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Additionally, the reading limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, the outputting limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving of transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“divides the time series waveform data of the objective variable based on state change points in a time direction to generate the plurality of first sections”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the first processing circuitry…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifies at least one data part where a set of the prediction value of the explanatory variable at the future time in the prediction data and the value of the objective variable at a seventh time before or after the second prediction time period from the future time matches a set of the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable and the time series waveform data of the objective variable”
“selects the first section including an eighth time after the first prediction time period from a ninth time being time of the matching part”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)) and mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“the third time is time before or after a second prediction time period from the first time”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein: in each prediction model, the explanatory variable at the first time and the objective variable at a third time are associated with the objective variable at the second time later than the third time”
“the first processing circuitry…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“associates the value of the objective variable included in the time series waveform data of the objective variable with any of a plurality of reference values to generate time series waveform data of the reference values”
“divides the time series waveform data of the objective variable at a time where the reference values change to generate the plurality of first sections”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the first processing circuitry”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“develops the time series waveform data of the objective variable on axes of time and the objective variable”
“divides the developed time series waveform data in a direction orthogonal to the axis of the objective variable to generate the plurality of first sections”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the first processing circuitry”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifies at least one part where a set of the prediction value of the explanatory variable at the future time in the prediction data and the value of the objective variable at a seventh time before or after the second prediction time period from the future time matches a set of the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable and the time series waveform data of the objective variable”
“selects the first section including an eighth time after the first prediction time period from a ninth time being time of the matching part”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)) and mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“the third time is time before or after a second prediction time period from the first time”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein: in each prediction model, the explanatory variable at a first time and the objective variable at a third time are associated with the objective variable at a second time later than the third time”
“the first processing circuitry…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“divides the time series waveform data of the objective variable into the plurality of first sections according to a plurality of reference values”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)) and mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“the plurality of first sections are a plurality of sections corresponding to intervals between the plurality of reference values”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“the first processing circuitry…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determines the plurality of reference values based on a distribution of the values of the objective variable included in the time series waveform data of the objective variable”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the first processing circuitry”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the plurality of reference values are a plurality of threshold values set in advance”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generates a plurality of candidates of the prediction model for the first section”
“calculates a prediction value of the objective variable by using the plurality of candidates”
“determines that the prediction value is correct when the prediction value is included in the second section that is the same as the second section including an actual value of the objective variable”
“selects the prediction model from the plurality of candidates based on a number of correct prediction values”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)) and mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein a plurality of second sections between the reference values are formed”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“the first processing circuitry…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generates a plurality of candidates of the prediction model for the first section”
“calculates prediction values of the objective variable by using the plurality of candidates and the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable”
“determines whether each prediction value is correct based on whether the prediction value satisfies a first condition”
“selects a candidate from the plurality of candidates based on a number of correct prediction values”
“and even when the first condition is not satisfied, determines that the prediction value is correct when there is a value of the objective variable satisfying the first condition for the prediction value within a window width from a time of the prediction value”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the first processing circuitry…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“selects the first sections based on prediction accuracy”
“predicts the objective variable by using the plurality of prediction models generated for the plurality of first sections”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“the first processing circuitry…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the first processing circuitry generates the prediction models based on deep learning, a statistical method, or a regression method.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“output information regarding the plurality of first sections, the prediction model corresponding to the selected first section, and a prediction value of the objective variable acquired by the prediction model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“an output circuit configured to”
“prediction model”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generates the power generation plan that keeps a water level of a dam within a certain range”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the second processing circuitry”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein when the desired amount of electricity generated is not expected to be obtained based on the power generation plan …requesting a consumer to save power as the demand and supply control”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“the second processing circuitry controls demand and supply by…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein when the desired amount of electricity generated is not expected to be obtained based on the power generation plan, the second processing circuitry controls to additionally execute pumped storage power generation”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein when the desired amount of electricity generated is not expected to be obtained based on the power generation plan, the second processing circuitry notifies that the amount of power generation is lacking to a power generation plant other than the hydroelectric power plant”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 26 is directed to an information processing method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“dividing the time series waveform data of the objective variable into a plurality of first sections based on a plurality of stationary state values”
“generating, for each of the plurality of first sections, a plurality of prediction models in which the explanatory variable and the objective variable are associated”
“evaluating the prediction models for each first section based on a correct rate and selecting one model per section”
“identifying a matching part between the prediction data and the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable”
“selecting a first section including a fourth time after a prediction time period from a fifth time being the time of the matching part”
“predicting the objective variable at a sixth time after the prediction time period from the future time by using the model corresponding to the selected section”
“generating a power generation plan for the hydroelectric power plant for a period including the sixth time, and controlling supply and demand of electricity based on the plan and a desired power amount”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“reading out, from at least one memory, time series waveform data of an objective variable, the objective variable being related to a volume of stored water at a hydroelectric power plant during a given time period, time series waveform data of an explanatory variable, the explanatory variable being related to an amount regarding weather during the given time period, and prediction data including a predicted value of the explanatory variable at a future time after the given time period”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Additionally, the reading limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 27 is directed to a recording medium having a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes a computer to perform processes, which as discussed above, is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“dividing the time series waveform data of the objective variable into a plurality of first sections based on a plurality of stationary state values”
“generating, for each of the plurality of first sections, a plurality of prediction models in which the explanatory variable and the objective variable are associated”
“evaluating the prediction models for each first section based on a correct rate and selecting one model per section”
“identifying a matching part between the prediction data and the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable”
“selecting a first section including a fourth time after a prediction time period from a fifth time being the time of the matching part”
“predicting the objective variable at a sixth time after the prediction time period from the future time by using the model corresponding to the selected section”
“generating a power generation plan for the hydroelectric power plant for a period including the sixth time, and controlling supply and demand of electricity based on the plan and a desired power amount”
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A recording medium having a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes a computer to perform processes”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“reading out, from at least one memory, time series waveform data of an objective variable, the objective variable being related to a volume of stored water at a hydroelectric power plant during a given time period, time series waveform data of an explanatory variable, the explanatory variable being related to an amount regarding weather during the given time period, and prediction data including a predicted value of the explanatory variable at a future time after the given time period”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Additionally, the reading limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts that amended independent claim 1 is not directed to a mental process (“Remarks”, Page 17). Applicant further asserts that the “dividing the time series waveform data…”, “generating… a plurality of prediction models”, and “selecting one prediction model” limitations of amended independent claim 1 cannot be performed mentally because the process requires numerical computation on large-scale time series data, using statistical and machine learning methods such as RMSE and R2 (“Remarks”, Page 18).
However, the claims do not recite any size or scale of time-series data, or RMSE or R2 methods. Further, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, the dividing the time-series data into sections, generating a plurality of prediction models, and selecting one prediction model limitations are mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper). For example, with the assistance of pen and paper, one could divide time series data into a plurality of sections. Further, one could mentally generate prediction models by, for example, defining model requirements and/or parameters and writing it down on paper.
Applicant further asserts that the process in amended claim 1 includes the limitation: “identifying at least one part, in the time series waveform data of the explanatory variable based on a distance metric”. Applicant further asserts that this calculation requires distance metrics such as Euclidean distance and dynamic time warping between predicted data and historical data to identify a matching part, which also involve vectorized numerical processes, and is therefore not a mental process (“Remarks”, Page 18).
However, the claim does not recite a specific type of distance metric. Further, vectorized numerical processes could be performed mentally, with or without the assistance of pen and paper, with simple numerical values by, for example, subtracting two numbers from two different vectors.
Applicant further asserts that claim 1 includes “inputting the prediction value of the explanatory variable at the future time indicated by the predictive data into the prediction model corresponding to the selected first section to predict the objective variable at a sixth time after the prediction time period from the future time”, which is an algorithmic, non-mental computation, typically implemented using trained neural networks or regression functions (“Remarks”, Page 18).
However, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the “inputting” into a prediction model limitation is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas because the limitation recites a generic use of a machine learning model. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further asserts that claim 1 includes the limitations: “generating a power generation plan of a hydroelectric power plant," and "output a control signal for controlling supply and demand of electricity to consumers supplied with the power from the hydroelectric power plant”, which is a physical signal generation and execution of power system control cannot be performed mentally (“Remarks”, Page 19).
However, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, “generating a power generation plan of a hydroelectric power plant” is a mental process because it is possible to mentally generate a plan. Further, the outputting a control signal limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving of transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Therefore, the limitations do not integrate any abstract ideas into a practical application.
Applicant further asserts that the amended claims recite elements that provide a specific technical improvement over prior prediction devices, which results in an improved prediction device (“Remarks”, Page 20). Applicant further asserts that the claimed elements improve the functioning of a computer because it allows the computer to perform a method in which "the time series data of the objective variable is divided into a plurality of sections, and a model (prediction model) is generated for each of the sections. In the time series data of the objective variable and the explanatory variable, the part matching the objective variable prediction data is identified, and the objective variable is predicted by using the model corresponding to the section where the time after a prediction period from the time of the identified part is included." (“Remarks”, Page 20).
Applicant further asserts the claimed combination of elements in amended independent claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer because it allows the computer to predict objective variable with high accuracy, “even in a case where the objective variable after the prediction period corresponds to a peak” (“Remarks”, Page 22).
Applicant further asserts the claimed combination of elements in amended independent claim 1 embodies an inventive arrangement of non-conventional steps that yield improved functionality for hydroelectric forecasting and control (“Remarks”, Page 24).
However, even if the claims did recite an improvement, it would be an improvement in the abstract ideas of dividing time series data and generating predictions models, which Applicant asserts provides the improved accuracy. Further, as written, any improvement in the claims would also be in the abstract idea of generating a power generation plan. The MPEP notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Therefore, even if the claims did recite an improvement, it would be an improvement in the abstract ideas. Thus, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights