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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Necessitated by the amendments to independent claims 1 and 11 and the newly added claims 17-19, new grounds of rejection are made to claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the new limitation of amended claim 1, “wherein the verification signal enables an additional security check to determine whether it is secure to use the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision, and wherein the verification signal makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent and retraceable by identifying specific input image regions that contributed to the automatic decision”, reflects technological improvements to computer-implemented neural network systems, specifically, “(1) solving the fundamental "black box" problem in neural network decision-making through transparent and retraceable verification signals; (2) enabling fine-grained, layer-specific analysis of CNN decision processes; (3) reducing computational expense and eliminating optimization steps for real-time verification feasibility; (4) providing enhanced debugging capabilities for CNN architecture development; (5) eliminating labor-intensive preprocessing requirements through flexible input handling; (6) achieving dramatic performance improvements through dedicated GPU implementation (reducing processing time from 30 seconds to 0.1824 seconds); and (7) enabling secure deployment of automated decision systems in critical applications”.
With respect to alleged improvements (1)-(5) and (7), in light of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 11, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been updated to reflect a new analysis. The newly presented limitations are being analyzed as mental processes and mathematical concepts as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below. Further, the portions of the claims that allegedly provide the improvements (1)-(7) as outlined by Applicant (see Applicant’s Remarks P.12, Para.2) are part of the judicial exception. For example, at least the amended limitations of “a layerwise relevance propagation (LRP) generates an explanation for a class by redistributing a score, layerwise back to an input space such that a contrastive signal is constructed in the input space, wherein the LRP propagates an activation value from a single class-specific neuron back into the input space, layer by layer, wherein in each layer of a backward pass, given a relevance score of neurons in a subsequent layer, relevance of neurons in current layers are computed by redistributing the relevance score using local redistribution rules” (currently analyzed as a mathematical concept) and “wherein the verification signal enables an additional security check to determine whether it is secure to use the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision, and wherein the verification signal makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent and retraceable by identifying specific input image regions that contributed to the automatic decision” (currently analyzed as a mental process) include mathematical processes including mathematical calculations and mental processes including evaluation and judgment. See MPEP 2106.05(I), “An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, the limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are part of the judicial exception itself as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis below.
With respect to alleged improvement (6), a “dedicated GPU implementation” is not claimed, nonetheless, utilization of a “dedicated GPU implementation” would be interpreted as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitations “determine whether it is secure to use the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision of the convolutional neural network” and “the verification signal makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent” in claims 1 and 11 include a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “secure” and “transparent” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to which basis or degree of measurement is established for secureness or transparentness. Examiner suggests at least amending the limitation of “determine whether it is secure to use the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision of the convolutional neural network” to read “determine whether using the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision of the convolutional neural network satisfies a security criterion” in order to obviate the relative term “secure”. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10, and 12-19 are rejected for their direct or indirect dependency on claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
providing a verification signal
generating a first saliency map for each target class of the classification task by a backpropagation algorithm
calculating a set of virtual classes for each target class, being opposite of the respective target class
generating a second saliency map for the set of virtual classes by a backpropagation algorithm
computing the differences between the first saliency map and the second saliency map for computing a final saliency map
a layerwise relevance propagation (LRP) generates an explanation for a class by redistributing a score, layerwise back to an input space such that a contrastive signal is constructed in the input space, wherein the LRP propagates an activation value from a single class-specific neuron back into the input space, layer by layer, wherein in each layer of a backward pass, given a relevance score of neurons in a subsequent layer, relevance of neurons in current layers are computed by redistributing the relevance score using local redistribution rules
the verification signal enables an additional security check to determine whether it is secure to use the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision of the convolutional neural network
the verification signal makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent and retraceable1 by identifying specific input image regions that contributed to the automatic decision
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
providing a verification signal (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
generating a first saliency map for each target class of the classification task (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper) by a backpropagation algorithm (corresponds to mathematical calculations);
calculating a set of virtual classes for each target class, being opposite of the respective target class (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
generating a second saliency map for the set of virtual classes (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper) by a backpropagation algorithm (corresponds to mathematical calculations);
computing the differences between the first saliency map and the second saliency map for computing a final saliency map (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
a layerwise relevance propagation (LRP) generates an explanation for a class by redistributing a score, layerwise back to an input space such that a contrastive signal is constructed in the input space, wherein the LRP propagates an activation value from a single class-specific neuron back into the input space, layer by layer, wherein in each layer of a backward pass, given a relevance score of neurons in a subsequent layer, relevance of neurons in current layers are computed by redistributing the relevance score using local redistribution rules (corresponds to mathematical calculations);
the verification signal enables an additional security check to determine whether it is secure to use the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision of the convolutional neural network (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
the verification signal makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent and retraceable by identifying specific input image regions that contributed to the automatic decision by identifying specific input image regions that contributed to the automatic decision (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “accessing a memory with a convolutional neural network being trained for a visual classification task into a set of target classes”, “using the convolutional neural network for an input image and after a forward pass of the convolutional neural network”, and “applying a contrastive layer-wise relevance propagation (CLRP) algorithm”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process utilizing mathematical concepts of generating saliency maps for a convolutional neural network. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “the verification signal is provided as a saliency map for each feature on each layer of the convolutional neural network”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
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 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
class discriminative and instance-specific saliency maps are generated
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses class discriminative and instance-specific saliency maps are generated (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “by applying the CLRP algorithm”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
defining any other of the set of target classes as a virtual class
defining all other target classes of the set of target classes as a virtual class
constructing the virtual class by generating an additional class
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
defining any other of the set of target classes as a virtual class (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
defining all other target classes of the set of target classes as a virtual class (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
constructing the virtual class by generating an additional class (corresponds to evaluation and judgment)
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “connecting it with a last layer using weights, wherein the weights are the inverted weights of the forward pass”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
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 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “the visual classification task is a medical classification task in medical images in order to detect anomalies”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this additional element amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the claim recites additional elements that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Similarly, this has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h); 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). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
application of the convolutional neural network is only approved, if the provided verification signal is above a pre-configurable confidence threshold
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses application of the convolutional neural network is only approved, if the provided verification signal is above a pre-configurable confidence threshold (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
the generated saliency maps are post processed and/or are refined and/or an averaging and/or a thresholding is applied
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses the generated saliency maps are post processed and/or are refined and/or an averaging and/or a thresholding is applied (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a verification unit comprising a memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
to generate a saliency map for each of the target classes
generating a first saliency map for each target class of the classification task by a backpropagation algorithm
calculating a set of virtual classes for each target class, being opposite of the respective target class
generating a second saliency map for the set of virtual classes by a backpropagation algorithm
computing the differences between the first saliency map and the second saliency map for computing a final saliency map
a layerwise relevance propagation (LRP) generates an explanation for a class by redistributing a score, layerwise back to an input space such that a contrastive signal is constructed in the input space, wherein the LRP propagates an activation value from a single class-specific neuron back into the input space, layer by layer, wherein in each layer of a backward pass, given a relevance score of neurons in a subsequent layer, relevance of neurons in current layers are computed by redistributing the relevance score using local redistribution rules
the verification signal enables an additional security check to determine whether it is secure to use the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision of the convolutional neural network
the verification signal makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent and retraceable2 by identifying specific input image regions that contributed to the automatic decision
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
to generate a saliency map for each of the target classes (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper);
generating a first saliency map for each target class of the classification task (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper) by a backpropagation algorithm (corresponds to mathematical calculations);
calculating a set of virtual classes for each target class, being opposite of the respective target class (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
generating a second saliency map for the set of virtual classes (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper) by a backpropagation algorithm (corresponds to mathematical calculations);
computing the differences between the first saliency map and the second saliency map for computing a final saliency map (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
a layerwise relevance propagation (LRP) generates an explanation for a class by redistributing a score, layerwise back to an input space such that a contrastive signal is constructed in the input space, wherein the LRP propagates an activation value from a single class-specific neuron back into the input space, layer by layer, wherein in each layer of a backward pass, given a relevance score of neurons in a subsequent layer, relevance of neurons in current layers are computed by redistributing the relevance score using local redistribution rules (corresponds to mathematical calculations);
the verification signal enables an additional security check to determine whether it is secure to use the convolutional neural network for an automatic decision of the convolutional neural network (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
the verification signal makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent and retraceable by identifying specific input image regions that contributed to the automatic decision (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “a verification unit which is configured for verifying a visual classification architecture of a convolutional neural network”, “a memory with the CNN , being trained for a visual classification task into a set of target classes”, “a processor which is configured for using the CNN and wherein the processor is configured after a forward pass of the CNN”, and “apply a contrastive layer-wise relevance propagation (CLRP) algorithm”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process utilizing mathematical concepts of generating saliency maps for a convolutional neural network. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “A computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system”, and “when the program elements are loaded into a memory of the computer” as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium on which a convolutional neural network and program elements are stored that can be read and executed by a computer in order to perform steps”, and “when the program elements are executed by the computer” as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “the CLRP algorithm is executed on a dedicated graphical processing unit, and, as a function of executing the CLRP algorithm on the dedicated graphical processing unit, a time to generate ne explanation is reduced”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a verification unit comprising a memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “the CLRP algorithm is executed on a dedicated graphical processing unit, and, as a function of executing the CLRP algorithm on the dedicated graphical processing unit, a time to generate ne explanation is reduced”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
in each layer, the LRP redistributes the score according to specific propagation rules
a relevance value assigned to each pixel by the LRP indicates a relevance of each pixel to the class
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
in each layer, the LRP redistributes the score according to specific propagation rules (corresponds to mathematical calculations);
a relevance value assigned to each pixel by the LRP indicates a relevance of each pixel to the class (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17,
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 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
without optimizing layers of the convolutional neural network during backpropagation
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
without optimizing layers of the convolutional neural network during backpropagation (corresponds to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “the contrastive layer-wise relevance propagation (CLRP) algorithm operates on the convolutional neural network without adding extra feedback layers to the convolutional neural network structure”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
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 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “the convolutional neural network remains structurally unmodified during application of the contrastive layer-wise relevance propagation (CLRP) algorithm”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitations:
detect an anomaly in an image
verifying the detecting of the anomaly based on the verification signal being above a pre-configurable confidence threshold
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
detect an anomaly in an image (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
verifying the detecting of the anomaly based on the verification signal being above a pre-configurable confidence threshold (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “utilizing the convolutional neural network”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 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 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lin et al. (US 20170344884 A1 (May 2016)) discusses semantic class localization in neural networks by utilizing semantic relevance propagation techniques.
Seebock et al. (“Identifying and Categorizing Anomalies in Retinal Imaging Data” (December 2016)) discusses neural networking techniques for anomaly detection in image data of retinas.
Prakash et al. (US 20170251931 A1 (Published 2017); hereinafter Prakash) discusses performing medical image detection for OCT images.
Bach et al. (“On Pixel-Wise Explanations for Non-Linear Classifier Decisions by Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation” (Published 2015); hereinafter Bach) discusses understanding classification decisions by neural network models by using layer-wise relevance propagation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SIMON F ELLIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar can be reached on (571) 272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMON FISCHER ELLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 The language of “makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent and retraceable” merely specifies an intended result of the identification of the input regions and is not entitled to patentable weight.
2 The language of “makes the automatic decision of the convolutional neural network transparent and retraceable” merely specifies an intended result of the identification of the input regions and is not entitled to patentable weight.