DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Claim 18 is new. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome 112 (b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/02/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Limonad et al. (US Pub. 2017/0300822) and further in view of Mitsui et al. (US Pub. 2013/0325477).
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 2-3)
Applicant respectfully submits that claim I is not directed to an abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind and it is also not directed to mathematical concepts.
It is respectfully submitted that the limitations recited in the independent claims:
"loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage; for at least one explanatory variable and for each label class, transforming the time-series training data into frequency domain data; for the at least one explanatory variable, obtaining (i) a minimum absolute difference between frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data of different label classes associated with ground-truth labels for supervised training or (ii) a minimum peak frequency among the label classes; determining a time width used for machine learning based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width; storing the determined time width in storage; clipping the time-series training data into training segments of the determined time width; and training a learned model using the clipped training segments and store the learned model in storage, wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements", are not limitations that can be performed mentally in the human mind in a practical manner. They are also not limitations that recite specific mathematical formulae or mathematical concepts. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that, under Prong One, the claims do not recite an abstract idea and should be deemed patent eligible.
In response
The Applicant significantly amended claim 1 and argues that the amended claim is not direct directed to an abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind and it is also not directed to mathematical concepts.
As stated in the 101 rejections section below, the claim limitations clearly recite mental processes since the claim reciting the steps of (among others) “obtaining a minimum peak frequency … determining a time width … clipping the time-series training data into training segments”. These steps are based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion that are performable in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a user can identify a frequency peak on a graph, the user can determine an input length for a model, and can limit the input length to a certain window/range.
Further, the limitation of “transforming time-series training data into frequency domain data”, by applying Fast Fourier Transform on the data, recites mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Other argued limitations above, beside limitations that recites mathematical concept or mental processes, are analyzed under Step 2A Prong2 and 2B as the additional limitations. (Please see the 101 rejections section below for detail)
Applicant argues (pages 4-5)
Even if it is assumed claim 1 recites a judicial exception, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test because the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) indicates integration into a practical application can be demonstrated "when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." Moreover, MPEP 2106.0S(a)(II) indicates an improvement in accuracy may be sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) provides that "If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception."
In the instant case, the independent claims are amended and recite detailed and specific limitations highlighting how the claimed features provided for an improved control of the machine learning pipeline, which includes window-width storing – clipping – learning - model storing. Thus, rather than merely applying formulas, the claimed features specifically improve the machine learning technology by altering the input-output behavior of machine learning processing by "loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage; for at least one explanatory variable and for each label class, transforming the timeseries training data into frequency domain data; for the at least one explanatory variable, obtaining (i) a minimum absolute difference between frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data of different label classes associated with ground-truth labels for supervised training or (ii) a minimum peak frequency among the label classes; determining a time width used for machine learning based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width; storing the determined time width in storage; clipping the time-series training data into training segments of the determined time width; and training a learned model using the clipped training segments and store the learned model in storage, wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements."
Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application of any alleged exception, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test.
In response
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As stated in the 101 section below, the claim recites the additional elements that either amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and transmitting (loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage), linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (determining a time width based on … and the determined time width is set and used at the time of …), insignificant extra-solution activities of data storing (storing the determined time width in storage … store the learned model in storage) and mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (training a learned model using the clipped training segments). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claim limitations do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The claim does not recite how the machine learning model is trained or operated to implement the process such that the machine learning model is improved. The claim only recites using a machine learning technology as a tool to perform a mental process of “determining a tine width”, wherein, the model is trained using a certain training data to maybe improve the determining process. However, an improvement in an abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. The claim must recite additional elements which provide the improvement.
Applicant argues (pages 5-6)
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that even if it is assumed the claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is not conceded, independent claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea. In particular, MPEP 2106.0S(I)(A)(v) indicates that in evaluating Step 2B, an additional element or combination of elements "[adds] a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application," has been found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
For example, the claimed features provide a specific improvement over conventional systems since the training input length is automatically optimized using the objective rule "smaller measure, larger window width," improving the trade-off between accuracy and latency/resources in accordance with system requirements. This provides performance improvement of the learning process itself carried out by computers, and it is not merely the presentation of results or a business method.
Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, provides an "inventive concept," and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities.
In response
As stated in the 101 rejections below, Step 2B, 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, the additional elements of “loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “determining a time width … based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width” and “wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “storing the determined time width in storage” and “store the learned model in storage” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The additional element of “training a learned model using the clipped training segments” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The Applicant then argues that “the training input length is automatically optimized using the objective rule "smaller measure, larger window width," improving the trade-off between accuracy and latency/resources in accordance with system requirements”, without explaining why determining the training input length based on the frequency using the rule “smaller measure, larger window width” would improve the trade-off between accuracy and latency/resources. While the claim recites a step of determining a time width/input length/time length using the peak frequency, and it can be understood that time is inversely proportional to frequency, thus, the time length is larger when the frequency value is smaller. The claim must recite the steps that provide the improvement.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “transforming time-series training data into frequency domain data” recites mathematical concept.
The limitation of “for the at least one explanatory variable, obtaining (i) a minimum absolute difference between frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data of different label classes associated with ground-truth labels for supervised training or (ii) a minimum peak frequency among the label classes”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user identifying the frequency peaks (minimum peak or the difference between the frequency peaks) on the graph.
The limitation of “determining a time width used for machine learning ….”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the input length for a model to perform.
The limitation of “clipping the time-series training data into training segments of the determined time width”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “clipping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user limiting the input length to a certain window/range.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “An information processing apparatus”, “a memory” and “at least one processor”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and transmitting which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The limitations of “determining a time width … based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width” and “wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites the additional elements of “storing the determined time width in storage” and “store the learned model in storage”. The store steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data storing, which have been identified as a type of limitation that is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “training a learned model using the clipped training segments”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of training) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
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, the additional elements of ““An information processing apparatus”, “a memory” and “at least one processor” to perform the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of “loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “determining a time width … based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width” and “wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “storing the determined time width in storage” and “store the learned model in storage” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The additional element of “training a learned model using the clipped training segments” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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:
The claim recites the apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “obtain a frequency difference between the frequency domain data at frequency peak locations”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtain” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining the difference between the two frequency values.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “determine the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at the frequency peak locations”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “determine the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at the frequency peak locations” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “determine the time width so that the time width is larger as a value of the frequency difference is smaller”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “determine the time width so that the time width is larger as a value of the frequency difference is smaller” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “determine the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at locations where frequency peaks of the frequency domain data are determined to be the highest”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “determine the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at locations where frequency peaks of the frequency domain data are determined to be the highest” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “determine the time width based on a minimum value of frequencies at frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “determine the time width based on a minimum value of frequencies at frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “transform the time-series training data into the frequency domain data for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data” recites mathematical concept.
The limitation of “compare the frequency domain data belong to different classes, respectively, for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data …”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “compare” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the difference between the two frequency values.
The limitation of “obtain a time width”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtain” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the input length for a model to perform.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “obtain … based on a difference between the frequency domain data for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, and determining the time width based on the calculated time width of each explanatory variable”. These limitations amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional elements of “obtain … based on a difference between the frequency domain data for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, and determining the time width based on the calculated time width of each explanatory variable” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “based on a result of the machine learning, for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, obtain an importance degree of the explanatory variable” recites mathematical concept.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “perform machine learning by a predetermined learned model by use of the time-series training data set by the determined time width”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “determine the time width based on the importance degree of each explanatory variable and the time width obtained for each explanatory variable” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “perform machine learning by a predetermined learned model by use of the time-series training data set by the determined time width” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitation of “determine the time width based on the importance degree of each explanatory variable and the time width obtained for each explanatory variable” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “obtain the importance degree of the explanatory variable based on a ratio at which the explanatory variable contributes to output in the learned model” recites mathematical concept.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “determine the time width based on the time width of the explanatory variable whose importance degree is determined to be the highest”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional element 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, the additional element of “determine the time width based on the time width of the explanatory variable whose importance degree is determined to be the highest” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites a computer-readable storage medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “transforming time-series training data into frequency domain data” recites mathematical concept.
The limitation of “for the at least one explanatory variable, obtaining (i) a minimum absolute difference between frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data of different label classes associated with ground-truth labels for supervised training or (ii) a minimum peak frequency among the label classes”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user identifying the frequency peaks (minimum peak or the difference between the frequency peaks) on the graph.
The limitation of “determining a time width used for machine learning ….”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the input length for a model to perform.
The limitation of “clipping the time-series training data into training segments of the determined time width”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “clipping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user limiting the input length to a certain window/range.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “an information processing apparatus”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and transmitting which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The limitations of “determining a time width … based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width” and “wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites the additional elements of “storing the determined time width in storage” and “store the learned model in storage”. The store steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data storing, which have been identified as a type of limitation that is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “training a learned model using the clipped training segments”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of training) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
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, the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “an information processing apparatus” to perform the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of “loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “determining a time width … based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width” and “wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “storing the determined time width in storage” and “store the learned model in storage” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The additional element of “training a learned model using the clipped training segments” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “transforming time-series training data into frequency domain data” recites mathematical concept.
The limitation of “for the at least one explanatory variable, obtaining (i) a minimum absolute difference between frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data of different label classes associated with ground-truth labels for supervised training or (ii) a minimum peak frequency among the label classes”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user identifying the frequency peaks (minimum peak or the difference between the frequency peaks) on the graph.
The limitation of “determining a time width used for machine learning ….”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the input length for a model to perform.
The limitation of “clipping the time-series training data into training segments of the determined time width”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “clipping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user limiting the input length to a certain window/range.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element of “loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and transmitting which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The limitations of “determining a time width … based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width” and “wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites the additional elements of “storing the determined time width in storage” and “store the learned model in storage”. The store steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data storing, which have been identified as a type of limitation that is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “training a learned model using the clipped training segments”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of training) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
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, the additional elements of “loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “determining a time width … based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width” and “wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “storing the determined time width in storage” and “store the learned model in storage” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The additional element of “training a learned model using the clipped training segments” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “at a time of comparing the frequency domain data, a frequency difference between the frequency domain data at frequency peak locations is obtained”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtain” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining the difference between the two frequency values.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “the time width is determined based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at the frequency peak locations”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “the time width is determined based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at the frequency peak locations” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “the time width is determined so that the time width is larger as a value of the frequency difference is smaller”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “the time width is determined so that the time width is larger as a value of the frequency difference is smaller” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “wherein the time width is determined based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at locations where frequency peaks of the frequency domain data are determined to be the highest”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “wherein the time width is determined based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at locations where frequency peaks of the frequency domain data are determined to be the highest” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “wherein the time width is determined based on a minimum value of frequencies at frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “wherein the time width is determined based on a minimum value of frequencies at frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the time-series training data is transformed into the frequency domain data for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data” recites mathematical concept.
The limitation of “the frequency domain data that belong to different classes, respectively, are compared for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “compare” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the difference between the two frequency values.
The limitation of “the time width is obtained”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtain” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the input length for a model to perform.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “the time width is obtained based on a difference between the frequency domain data for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, and the time width is determined based on the obtained time width of each explanatory variable”. These limitations amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional elements of “the time width is obtained based on a difference between the frequency domain data for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, and the time width is determined based on the obtained time width of each explanatory variable” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “based on a result of the machine learning, for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, obtaining an importance degree of the explanatory variable” recites mathematical concept.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “after determining the time width, performing machine learning by a predetermined learned model by use of the time-series training data set by the determined time width”. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “determining the time width based on the importance degree of each explanatory variable and the obtained time width of each explanatory variable” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “after determining the time width, performing machine learning by a predetermined learned model by use of the time-series training data set by the determined time width” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “determining the time width based on the time width of the explanatory variable whose importance degree of the explanatory variable is determined to be a high value according to a preset standard” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “obtaining the importance degree of the explanatory variable based on a ratio at which the explanatory variable contributes to output in the learned model” recites mathematical concept.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “determining the time width based on the time width of the explanatory variable whose importance degree of the explanatory variable is determined to be the highest”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “determining the time width based on the time width of the explanatory variable whose importance degree of the explanatory variable is determined to be the highest” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “perform decision making to select, from candidate time widths, a final time width that is a maximum length satisfying system requirements”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites the additional element of “store the selected time width in storage”. The store step is recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data storing, which has been identified as a type of limitation that is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitation that amounts to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
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, the additional element of “perform decision making to select, from candidate time widths, a final time width that is a maximum length satisfying system requirements” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “store the selected time width in storage” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limonad et al. (US Pub. 2017/0300822) in view of Mitsui et al. (US Pub. 2013/0325477).
As per claim 1, Limonad teaches an information processing apparatus comprising [abstract, “computerized apparatus and computer program product for activity recognition using adaptive window size segmentation of sensor data stream”]:
a memory storing instructions [paragraph 0008, “a computer readable storage medium retaining program instructions”]; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to automatically perform operations comprising [paragraph 0008, “a computer readable storage medium retaining program instructions, which program instructions when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising”]:
loading time-series training data and associated class labels [Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 0033-0034, “A stream of sensory data, comprising measurements acquired over a continuous time period, may be provided as input for activity recognition … The data measurements may record several activities performed during the time period, such as walking, standing, or the like. The actual class of each of the activities performed in a given portion of the recording period, and which yielded the depicted measurements, is denoted on the top … The raw data stream may be segmented into a plurality of windows, such as Window 202, Window 204, Window 206, and Window 208, as denoted in the lower part of FIG. 2A. For each of the obtained windows, an activity type may be determined, by calculating a feature vector for the data samples contained therein, and applying a classification model on the calculated features. Exemplary classification results for the respective windows per the given segmentation are denoted at the bottom below each window. Labels that are in mismatch with the actual activity class are marked by a rectangular frame”; It can be seen that the stream of data comprising various activities and the actual class associated with each activity (shows on top of Fig. 2A) is received, the system applies a classification model to the received data to perform activity recognition and the results shows at the bottom of Fig. 2A, where, the mismatch with the actual class are marked by a rectangular frame (standing 204 and walking 206)];
for at least one explanatory variable and for each label class, transforming the time-series training data into frequency domain data [Fig. 3, paragraphs 0040-0043, “On step 310, a stream of data measurements generated by one or more sensors may be obtained. The sensors may record various activities performed during a given time period … On Step 320, an external window, used for computing a frequency of an activity recorded in the data stream obtained in Step 310, may be set to an initial size. The initial size may be an arbitrary default value, such as, for example, a few seconds long … On Step 330, the data in the external window may be analyzed to determine a dominant frequency component thereof. The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain”; It can be understood that the frequency analysis, by applying Fast Fourier Transform on the received data, transforms the time domain signal into frequency domain];
for the at least one explanatory variable, obtaining (i) a minimum absolute difference between frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data of different label classes associated with ground-truth labels for supervised training or (ii) a minimum peak frequency among the label classes [Fig. 3, paragraphs 0040-0044, “On Step 320, an external window, used for computing a frequency of an activity recorded in the data stream obtained in Step 310, may be set to an initial size. The initial size may be an arbitrary default value, such as, for example, a few seconds long … Once the size of the external window is initially set, data from the input stream may be read thereto to obtain a first data segment … On Step 330, the data in the external window may be analyzed to determine a dominant frequency component thereof. The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain … in case that more than one dominating frequency is found … the frequency which is the lowest among them may be selected as dominant”; It can be seen that the received data included in the external window is analyzed to obtain the dominant frequency by applying Fast Fourier Transform on the data to identify the peaks and the lowest peak (minimum peak frequency) is selected as the dominant frequency];
determining a time width used for machine learning based on at least one of the minimum absolute difference and the minimum peak frequency such that a smaller value of the used measure yields a larger time width [paragraph 0015, “the raw data is segmented into windows of a predetermined size”; paragraphs 0020 and 0023, “a first data segment is used to determine a dominant frequency of the data, and a second data segment, which is sized according to the dominant frequency, is used as the sampling window for which activity recognition is performed, i.e. by computing and labeling the various classification features. The size of the second segment may be determined based on a time length that best fits the most dominating frequency. For example, the size of the second segment may be inversely proportional to the dominating frequency … the data segment used for determining the most significant frequency component is also referred to as "external window", and the data segment used for determining the activity classification is also referred to as "internal window"”; paragraphs 0040-0044, “The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain … in case that more than one dominating frequency is found … the frequency which is the lowest among them may be selected as dominant”; paragraph 0047, “size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency, as determined on Step 330. The size of the internal window may be inversely proportional to the dominant frequency”; It can be seen that the internal window that comprising data used for determining the activity classification is determined based on the dominating frequency, wherein, the size of the internal window (time width) inversely proportional to the dominant frequency, that is the size of the internal window increases when the value of the dominant frequency decreases; and “paragraph 0056, “Data Obtaining Module 410 may be configured for receiving supervised data, comprising measurements instances and associated labels thereof, for training one or more machine learning classifiers”].
clipping the time-series training data into training segments of the determined time width [Fig. 3, paragraph 0047, “a size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency … data may be read into the internal window from the external window, in accordance with the size set for the internal window … On step 360, one or more features may be extracted from the data samples contained in the internal window … an activity type may be identified by classifying the features calculated on Step 360 using a machine learning process”; paragraph 0037, “the internal window may be used for segmenting the data”]; and
training a learned model using the clipped training segments [Fig. 3, paragraph 0047, “a size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency … On step 360, one or more features may be extracted from the data samples contained in the internal window … an activity type may be identified by classifying the features calculated on Step 360 using a machine learning process”],
wherein the determined time width is set and used at the time of performing machine learning of the time-series training data in accordance with system requirements [abstract, “Activity recognition is performed for the second segment by extracting one or more features of the data therein and applying a machine learning process on the extracted features to obtain a classification of the data into an activity class … activity recognition using adaptive window size segmentation of sensor data stream”; paragraph 0047, “a size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency … On step 360, one or more features may be extracted from the data samples contained in the internal window … an activity type may be identified by classifying the features calculated on Step 360 using a machine learning process”; It can be seen that when the system requires to perform activity recognition, a size of an internal window is set based on the dominant frequency, and the data features included in the internal window are classified using machine learning].
Limonad does not teach
loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage;
storing the determined time width in storage;
store the learned model in storage;
Mitsui teaches
loading time-series training data and associated class labels from storage [abstract, “a training database storing training data”; Since Limonad in Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0033-034 teaches the training data comprising the associated class, and Mitsui teaches the training data is stored in the training database, therefore, the combination of Limonad and Mitsui teaches the above claim limitation];
storing the determined time width in storage [paragraphs 0031-0032, “the feature that is the training data may include spectrum information obtained by the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of speech waveform and segmentation information which is time length information … The training database 4 may store time length information”];
store the learned model in storage [paragraph 0052, “in the HMM training unit 30 (the feature space division unit 1 and the prosody training unit 5), training is performed”; paragraphs 0062, 0067 and 0089“The prosody training unit 5 of the HMM training unit 30 trains a prosody model and generates the prosody generation model … The prosody generation unit 9 generates prosody information using the prosody generation model … The prosody generation model storage unit 6 stores the prosody generation model”; Since Limonad in paragraphs 0006 and 0056 teaches applying machine learning model to the training data to perform predicting, and Mitsui teaches training is performed using a prosody generation model, and the prosody generation model is stored in storage, therefore, the combination of Limonad and Mitsui teaches the limitation “store the learned model in storage”];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for processing data stream of Limonad to include storing the training data, storing the determined time width, and storing the learned model in storage of Mitsui. Doing so would help quickly accessing data and enhancing control of the input and the learned model when performing tasks.
As per claim 5, Limonad and Mitsui teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Limonad further teaches
determine the time width based on a minimum value of frequencies at frequency peak locations of the frequency domain data [paragraphs 0040-0044, “the data in the external window may be analyzed to determine a dominant frequency component thereof. The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain … in case that more than one dominating frequency is found … the frequency which is the lowest among them may be selected as dominant”; paragraph 0047, “size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency, as determined on Step 330. The size of the internal window may be inversely proportional to the dominant frequency”].
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 1 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 1 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 5 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 5.
As per claim 18, Limonad and Mitsui teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Mitsui teaches
store the selected time width in storage [paragraphs 0031-0032, “the feature that is the training data may include spectrum information obtained by the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of speech waveform and segmentation information which is time length information … The training database 4 may store time length information”].
Limonad further teaches
perform decision making to select, from candidate time widths, a final time width that is a maximum length satisfying system requirements [paragraphs 0040-0044, “The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain … in case that more than one dominating frequency is found … the frequency which is the lowest among them may be selected as dominant”; paragraph 0047, “size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency, as determined on Step 330. The size of the internal window may be inversely proportional to the dominant frequency”; it can be seen that the system applies FFT on the data to identify a frequency peak which is used to determine a time width (size of an internal window), and when there are multiple frequency peaks are found (each can be used to determine a time width), the system selects the frequency which is the lowest among them as dominant, and since the size of the internal window may be inversely proportional to the dominant frequency, selecting the frequency peak that is lowest among the frequency peaks indicating the system select a time width (internal window) having a maximum length].
Claims 2-4, 6, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limonad et al. in view of Mitsui et al. and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US Patent 4,546,690).
As per claim 2, Limonad and Mitsui teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Limonad in paragraphs 0040-0047 teaches the process of applying FFT on the data to identify the peaks, and comparing them to detect the lowest peak that is selected as the dominant frequency, the internal window width is then determined based on the dominant frequency.
Limonad and Mitsui do not explicitly teach
obtain a frequency difference between the frequency domain data at frequency peak locations; and
determine the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at the frequency peak locations.
Tanaka teaches
obtain a frequency difference between the frequency domain data at frequency peak locations [Col. 3, lines 11-16, “detecting whether the difference between two frequency data of said results of two consecutive detections is or is not within a predetermined frequency range”]; and
determine the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at the frequency peak locations [Col. 2, lines 59-60, “a method of detecting time length of a sound of an input audio signal”, wherein, Col. 3, lines 11-16, “determining time length of said sound by using said result of two consecutive detections, the step of determining time length having the steps of: detecting whether the difference between two frequency data of said results of two consecutive detections is or is not within a predetermined frequency range”; examiner interprets the time length as the time width of the input signal; Since Limonad teaches a process of comparing the frequency peaks to detect the lowest peak that is selected as the dominant frequency, while Tanaka teaches determining the difference between the frequencies, and the time length is determined based on the difference, therefore, the combination of Limonad and Tanaka teaches the above claim limitation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for processing data stream of Limonad to include determining the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data of Tanaka. Doing so would help determining a window that best fits the most dominating frequency (Limonad, 0020).
As per claim 3, Limonad, Mitsui and Tanaka teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 2.
Limonad (as modified) teaches
determine the time width so that the time width is larger as a value of the frequency difference is smaller [Limonad in paragraph 0047 teaches the time width (internal window size) is set based on the identified frequency, where the window size is inversely proportional to the identified frequency, and Tanaka in Col. 3 teaches the time width is determined based on the frequency difference, thus, the combination of Liminad and Tanaka teaches the time width is determined based on the frequency difference, and the time width is inversely proportional to the frequency difference, and therefore, teaches the limitation “determine the time width so that the time width is larger as a value of the frequency difference is smaller”].
As per claim 4, Limonad, Mitsui and Tanaka teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 2.
Limonad (as modified) teaches
determine the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at locations where frequency peaks of the frequency domain data are determined to be the highest [Limonad in paragraphs 0040-0047 teaches a process of applying Fast Fourier Transform on the data to identify the frequency peaks, comparing the frequency peaks, and the time width (internal window size) is set based on the identified frequency peak, while Tanaka in Col. 3 teaches the time width is determined based on the difference between the frequencies, thus, the combination of Liminad and Tanaka teaches the limitation “determine the time width based on the frequency difference between the frequency domain data at locations where frequency peaks of the frequency domain data are determined to be the highest”].
As per claim 6, Limonad and Mitsui teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Limonad teaches
transform the time-series training data into the frequency domain data for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data [Fig. 3, paragraphs 0040-0043, “On step 310, a stream of data measurements generated by one or more sensors may be obtained. The sensors may record various activities performed during a given time period … On Step 320, an external window, used for computing a frequency of an activity recorded in the data stream obtained in Step 310, may be set to an initial size. The initial size may be an arbitrary default value, such as, for example, a few seconds long … On Step 330, the data in the external window may be analyzed to determine a dominant frequency component thereof. The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain”; It can be understood that the frequency analysis, by applying Fast Fourier Transform on the received data, transforms the time domain signal into frequency domain];
the frequency domain data that belong to different classes, respectively, for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, the frequency domain data corresponding to the time-series training data [Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 0033-0034, “A stream of sensory data, comprising measurements acquired over a continuous time period, may be provided as input for activity recognition … The data measurements may record several activities performed during the time period, such as walking, standing, or the like. The actual class of each of the activities performed in a given portion of the recording period, and which yielded the depicted measurements, is denoted on the top; Fig. 3, paragraphs 0040-0043, “On step 310, a stream of data measurements generated by one or more sensors may be obtained. The sensors may record various activities performed during a given time period … On Step 320, an external window, used for computing a frequency of an activity recorded in the data stream obtained in Step 310, may be set … the data in the external window may be analyzed to determine a dominant frequency component thereof. The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain; It can be seen that the stream data with the associated classes is transformed to frequency domain by applying FFT on the data]; and
obtain the time width and determining the time width based on the obtained time width of each explanatory variable [paragraphs 0040-0044, “the data in the external window may be analyzed to determine a dominant frequency component thereof. The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain … in case that more than one dominating frequency is found … the frequency which is the lowest among them may be selected as dominant”; paragraph 0047, “size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency, as determined on Step 330. The size of the internal window may be inversely proportional to the dominant frequency”].
Limonad and Mitsui do not teach
compare the frequency domain data;
obtain the time width based on a difference between the frequency domain data;
Tanaka teaches
comparing the frequency domain data [Col. 2, lines 47-49, “when frequency difference and level difference between two consecutive detections are both within predetermined ranges”];
calculating the time width based on a difference between the frequency domain data [Col. 2, lines 59-60, “a method of detecting time length of a sound of an input audio signal”, wherein, Col. 3, lines 11-16, “determining time length of said sound by using said result of two consecutive detections, the step of determining time length having the steps of: detecting whether the difference between two frequency data of said results of two consecutive detections is or is not within a predetermined frequency range”; examiner interprets the time length as the time width of the input signal];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method for processing data stream of Limonad to include obtaining the time width based on a difference between the frequency domain data of Tanaka. Doing so would help determining a window that best fits the most dominating frequency (Limonad, 0020).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 2 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 3 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 4 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 6 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 6.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limonad et al. in view of Mitsui et al. in view of Tanaka et al. in view of Allen (US Pub. 2019/0019133) and further in view of Ren (US Patent 10,554,738).
As per claim 7, Limonad, Mitsui and Tanaka teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Limonad teaches
perform machine learning by a predetermined learned model by use of the time-series training data [paragraph 0006, “the activity recognition is performed by extracting one or more features of the data in the second segment and applying a machine learning process”];
determining the time width based the time width calculated for each explanatory variable [paragraphs 0040-0044, “the data in the external window may be analyzed to determine a dominant frequency component thereof. The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain … in case that more than one dominating frequency is found … the frequency which is the lowest among them may be selected as dominant”; paragraph 0047, “size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency, as determined on Step 330. The size of the internal window may be inversely proportional to the dominant frequency”].
Limonad, Mitsui and Tanaka do not explicitly teach
performing machine learning by a predetermined learned model by use of the time-series training data set by the determined time width;
based on a result of the machine learning, for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, calculating an importance degree of the explanatory variable; and further
determining the time width based on the importance degree of each explanatory variable.
Allen teaches
performing machine learning by a predetermined learned model by use of the time-series training data set by the determined time width [paragraph 0040, “the one or more initial score models 115 may also output a confidence level. The confidence level may reflect a relatively lower or higher confidence based, for example, on an amount of information that was input to the model, on a similarity between the information and training data used to train the one or more models”; examiner interprets an amount of information that was input to the model as the time/window width of training data];
based on a result of the machine learning, for each explanatory variable of the time-series training data, calculating an importance degree of the explanatory variable [paragraph 0040, “the one or more initial score models 115 may also output a confidence level. The confidence level may reflect a relatively lower or higher confidence; paragraph 0042, “a model may be trained to calculate a vehicle score indicating, for example, a vehicle safety”];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method for processing data stream of Limonad to include performing machine learning by a predetermined learned model by use of the time-series training data set by the determined time width, and based on a result of the machine learning, calculating an importance degree of the explanatory variable of Allen. Doing so would help determining a classification of the data into an activity class (Limonad, 0008).
Limonad, Mitsui, Tanaka and Allen do not explicitly teach
determining the time width based on the importance degree of each explanatory variable.
Ren teaches
determining the time width based on the importance degree of each explanatory variable [Col. 1, lines 38-42, “The apparatus includes a load balance model trained with received performance data. The apparatus uses the load balance model to predict workload values of the apparatus and other compute devices. The workload values are predicted for a future time window”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method for processing data stream of Limonad to include determining the time width based on the importance degree of each explanatory variable of Ren. Doing so would help training the predicted model using the time width of the training data (Ren, Col. 16, lines 29-31).
As per claim 8, Limonad, Mitsui, Tanaka, Allen and Ren teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 7.
Limonad teaches
determining the time width based the time width calculated for each explanatory variable [paragraphs 0040-0044, “the data in the external window may be analyzed to determine a dominant frequency component thereof. The frequency analysis may be performed by applying FFT on the data and identifying a peak of spectral energy in the frequency domain … in case that more than one dominating frequency is found … the frequency which is the lowest among them may be selected as dominant”; paragraph 0047, “size of an internal window, used for segmenting the data into samples for which feature extraction and activity classification are performed, may be set based on the dominant frequency, as determined on Step 330. The size of the internal window may be inversely proportional to the dominant frequency”].
Allen teaches
calculating the importance degree of the explanatory variable based on a ratio at which the explanatory variable contributes to output in the learned model [paragraph 0040, “the one or more initial score models 115 may also output a confidence level. The confidence level may reflect a relatively lower or higher confidence based, for example, on an amount of information that was input to the model, on a similarity between the information and training data used to train the one or more models, and the like; paragraph 0042, “a model may be trained to calculate a vehicle score indicating, for example, a vehicle safety”];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method for processing data stream of Limonad to include calculating the importance degree of the explanatory variable based on a ratio at which the explanatory variable contributes to output in the learned model of Allen. Doing so would help determining a classification of the data into an activity class (Limonad, 0008).
Ren teaches
determining the time width based on the time width of the explanatory variable whose importance degree of the explanatory variable is determined to be a high value according to a preset standard [Col. 1, lines 38-42, “The apparatus includes a load balance model trained with received performance data. The apparatus uses the load balance model to predict workload values of the apparatus and other compute devices. The workload values are predicted for a future time window”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method for processing data stream of Limonad to include determining the time width based on the importance degree of each explanatory variable of Ren. Doing so would help training the predicted model using the time width of the training data (Ren, Col. 16, lines 29-31).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 7 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites limitations that substantially similar to the limitations of Claim 8 and therefore is rejected by the same reason used for Claim 8.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kato et al. (US Patent 10,741,194) describes a method for changing an input sound comprising transforming an input signal into an amplitude component signal in a frequency domain.
Son et al. (US Pub. 2008/0270124) describes a method for transforming each frame of the input signal to a frequency domain.
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 TRI T NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-0103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM-5 PM, (CT).
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/TRI T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128