DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-14, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• multiple pieces of device information that respectively correspond to multiple devices
• configured to determine,..., one or more devices that are to perform learning processing
• configured to instruct the one or more devices to execute the learning processing
• CPU usage rate
• memory usage amount
• determine,…, learning processing times of corresponding devices, and determine the one or more devices that are to perform learning
• generate instruction information the determined one or more devices having the learning processing times being within the predetermined time limit to perform learning processing
• selectively control, by selecting devices of the one or more devices determined to perform learning processing based on the selected devices having learning processing times being within the predetermined time limit, transmission of the instruction information to the determined one or more devices (i.e., the “selection” is a mental step.)
Note that Applicant's Specification recites regarding the “selection”:
[0049] For example, a supervisor monitors people while viewing the information displayed on the output unit 13 of the server 10. Then, for example, in a case where the supervisor has noticed a lost child, the supervisor operates the input unit 12 to instruct one or more devices 20 out of the multiple devices 20 to perform machine learning processing on the basis of an image of the lost child. For example, the supervisor may select one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing by operating the inputting unit 12, or the learning instruction section 16E may select one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing, as described below. Then, the learning instruction section 16E generates instruction information MSG instructing to perform the machine learning processing, and the communication unit 11 transmits the instruction information MSG to the one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing.
Therefore, it is a mental step.
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. (Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising…” Therefore, it is an “apparatus”, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts”:
• multiple pieces of device information that respectively correspond to multiple devices
• configured to determine,..., one or more devices that are to perform learning processing
• configured to instruct the one or more devices to execute the learning processing
• CPU usage rate
• memory usage amount
• determine,…, learning processing times of corresponding devices, and determine the one or more devices that are to perform learning
• generate instruction information the determined one or more devices having the learning processing times being within the predetermined time limit to perform learning processing
• selectively control, by selecting devices of the one or more devices determined to perform learning processing based on the selected devices having learning processing times being within the predetermined time limit, transmission of the instruction information to the determined one or more devices (i.e., the “selection” is a mental step.)
Regarding the claimed “selecting,” note that Applicant's Specification recites:
[0049] For example, a supervisor monitors people while viewing the information displayed on the output unit 13 of the server 10. Then, for example, in a case where the supervisor has noticed a lost child, the supervisor operates the input unit 12 to instruct one or more devices 20 out of the multiple devices 20 to perform machine learning processing on the basis of an image of the lost child. For example, the supervisor may select one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing by operating the inputting unit 12, or the learning instruction section 16E may select one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing, as described below. Then, the learning instruction section 16E generates instruction information MSG instructing to perform the machine learning processing, and the communication unit 11 transmits the instruction information MSG to the one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing.
Therefore, it is a mental step.
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant's claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A storage unit/memory
(2) A learning processing/CPU
A “storage unit/memory” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0018] The memory 14 is configured to store data to be used when the processing unit 16 executes a program. The memory 14 is configured using a RAM (Random Access Memory), for example. Specifically, as the RAM 14, it is possible to use, for example, a DRAM (Dynamic RAM), an MRAM (Magnetoresistive RAM), an NVRAM (Non- Volatile RAM), or the like.
[0019] The storage 15 is configured to store various programs. As the storage 15, it is possible to use, for example, a hard disk, an SSD (Solid State Drive), a tape medium, or the like. The storage 15 stores the sensor information database DBS and the device information database DBD. Although a single storage 15 is provided in this example, this is non-limiting and, for example, multiple storages 15 may be provided. In this case, the multiple storages 15 may include, for example, only one kind of storages (for example, hard disks), or may include multiple kinds of storages.
This “storage unit/memory” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(1)(A)).
A “learning processing/CPU” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0038] The processing unit 28 is configured to control the operation of the device 20 and to perform various processing. The processing unit 28 is configured using, for example, a CPU, an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), an FPGA, or the like. The processing unit 28 may include two or more of these CPU and the like, for example. Further, the processing unit 28 may include a GPU, for example.
This “learning processing/CPU” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant's claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A storage unit/memory
(2) A learning processing/CPU
A “storage unit/memory” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0018] The memory 14 is configured to store data to be used when the processing unit 16 executes a program. The memory 14 is configured using a RAM (Random Access Memory), for example. Specifically, as the RAM 14, it is possible to use, for example, a DRAM (Dynamic RAM), an MRAM (Magnetoresistive RAM), an NVRAM (Non- Volatile RAM), or the like.
[0019] The storage 15 is configured to store various programs. As the storage 15, it is possible to use, for example, a hard disk, an SSD (Solid State Drive), a tape medium, or the like. The storage 15 stores the sensor information database DBS and the device information database DBD. Although a single storage 15 is provided in this example, this is non-limiting and, for example, multiple storages 15 may be provided. In this case, the multiple storages 15 may include, for example, only one kind of storages (for example, hard disks), or may include multiple kinds of storages.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “learning processing/CPU” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0038] The processing unit 28 is configured to control the operation of the device 20 and to perform various processing. The processing unit 28 is configured using, for example, a CPU, an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), an FPGA, or the like. The processing unit 28 may include two or more of these CPU and the like, for example. Further, the processing unit 28 may include a GPU, for example.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
each of the pieces of device information includes resource information indicating a resource of the corresponding one of the devices, and
the circuitry is further configured to determine the one or more devices on a basis of a computation amount in the learning processing, an amount of data that is a processing target of the learning processing, and the resource information about the multiple devices.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches resource information and a determination of the one or more devices. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
each of the pieces of device information includes location information indicating a location of the corresponding one of the devices, and
the circuitry is further configured to determine the one or more devices on a basis of the location information about the multiple devices.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches location information and a determination of the one or more devices. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured to calculate a distance between the multiple devices on the basis of the location information about the multiple devices and is further configured to determine the one or more devices on a basis of a result of calculation thereof.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches calculation of a distance between the multiple devices on the basis of the location information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire a movement path of each of the devices on the basis of the location information about the multiple devices and is further configured to determine the one or more devices on a basis of a result of acquisition thereof.
Applicant’s Claim 5 merely teaches acquisition of a movement path of each of the devices. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
6. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control transmission of data that is a processing target of the learning processing to the one or more devices.
Applicant’s Claim 6 merely teaches the communication unit’s transmission of data. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 6 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry further is further configured to instruct the one or more devices to acquire data that is a processing target of the learning processing.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches that the communication unit further instructs the one or more devices to acquire data. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
8. The apparatus according to claim 6, wherein
each of the multiple devices includes a sensor, and
the data that is the processing target of the learning processing is a result of detection by the sensor of one or more of the multiple devices.
Applicant’s Claim 8 merely teaches detection by a sensor. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).) Regarding the sensor limitation, Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0013] recites:
[0013] The device 20 includes, for example, multiple sensors 27 (described later), and performs machine learning processing on the basis of results of detection by the sensors 27. As the sensors 27, it is possible to use various sensors including, for example, temperature sensors, barometric pressure sensors, humidity sensors, GPS (Global Positioning System) sensors, acceleration sensors, image sensors, microphones, and the like. Further, the device 20 is able to transmit, for example, device information INFD including information about contexts, computing resources, and the like of the device 20, sensor information iNFS including the results of detection by the sensors 27, and a machine learning model M obtained by the machine learning processing to the server 10. Further, the device 20 is able to transmit, for example, the sensor information INFS and the machine learning model M to another device 20. The server 10 accumulates the sensor information INFS transmitted from the multiple devices 20 in a sensor information database DBS, and accumulates the device information INFD transmitted from the multiple devices 20 in a device information database DBD. For example, the server 10 references the device information database DBD and determines one or more devices 20 that are to perform machine learning processing, out of the multiple devices 20. Then, the server 10 instructs the determined one or more devices 20 to execute the machine learning processing. This makes it possible for the learning system 1 to perform distributed machine learning efficiently.
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the one or more devices include two or more devices,
the circuitry is further configured to control receiving of learning model information that is obtained by the learning processing and transmitted from each of the two or more devices, and
integrate two or more pieces of the learning model information.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches unspecified multiple devices, the receipt and transmission of unspecified information, and the integration of unspecified information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites:
10. The apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control transmission of an integrated piece of the learning model information to a first device that is one of the multiple devices and is other than the two or more devices.
Applicant’s Claim 10 merely teaches communication unit transmits a piece of information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
11. The apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control transmission of an integrated piece of the learning model information to the two or more devices.
Applicant’s Claim 11 merely teaches that the communication unit transmits a piece of information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 11 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “12. A learning system comprising...” Therefore, it is a “system” (or, “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 12 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 12 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts”:
• multiple pieces of device information that respectively correspond to multiple devices
• configured to determine,..., one or more devices that are to perform learning processing
• configured to instruct the one or more devices to execute the learning processing
• CPU usage rate
• memory usage amount
• determine,…, learning processing times of corresponding devices, and determine the one or more devices that are to perform learning
• instruct the determined one or more devices having the learning processing times being within the predetermined time limit to perform leaning processing
• selectively control, by selecting devices of the one or more devices determined to perform learning processing based on the selected devices having learning processing times being within the predetermined time limit, transmission of the instruction information to the determined one or more devices (i.e., the “selection” is a mental step.)
Note that Applicant's Specification recites regarding the “selection”:
[0049] For example, a supervisor monitors people while viewing the information displayed on the output unit 13 of the server 10. Then, for example, in a case where the supervisor has noticed a lost child, the supervisor operates the input unit 12 to instruct one or more devices 20 out of the multiple devices 20 to perform machine learning processing on the basis of an image of the lost child. For example, the supervisor may select one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing by operating the inputting unit 12, or the learning instruction section 16E may select one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing, as described below. Then, the learning instruction section 16E generates instruction information MSG instructing to perform the machine learning processing, and the communication unit 11 transmits the instruction information MSG to the one or more devices 20 that are to perform the machine learning processing.
Therefore, it is a mental step.
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A server
(2) Multiple devices
(3) A storage
(4) A learning processing
A “server” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0006] A server according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a storage unit, a processing unit, and a communication unit. The storage unit is configured to store multiple pieces of device information that respectively correspond to multiple devices, that are supplied respectively from the multiple devices, and that each include information about a corresponding one of the devices. The processing unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the multiple pieces of device information, one or more devices that are to perform leaning processing, out of the multiple devices. The communication unit is configured to instruct the one or more devices to execute the learning processing. This “server” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(1)(A)).
A “multiple devices” limitation is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0012] Each of the multiple devices 20 is a device having a communication function, and is an loT (Internet Of Thing) device or a sensor device, for example. Such a device 20 is applied to, for example, a smartphone, a smart meter, a digital camera, a drone, a vehicle, or the like. The multiple devices 20 are coupled to the server 10 via a public telecommunication network 101, and are configured to be able to communicate with the server 10. As the public telecommunication network 101, it is possible to use, for example, 3G (8rd Generation), LTE (Long Term Evolution), LPWAN (Low Power Wide Area Network), wireless LAN (Local Area Network), or the like. Further, the multiple devices 20 are coupled to each other via, for example, a closed telecommunication network 102, and are configured to be able to communicate with each other. It is to be noted that this is non-limiting, and the multiple devices 20 may be coupled to each other via the public telecommunication network 101.
This “multiple devices” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “storage” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0018] The memory 14 is configured to store data to be used when the processing unit 16 executes a program. The memory 14 is configured using a RAM (Random Access Memory), for example. Specifically, as the RAM 14, it is possible to use, for example, a DRAM (Dynamic RAM), an MRAM (Magnetoresistive RAM), an NVRAM (Non- Volatile RAM), or the like.
[0019] The storage 15 is configured to store various programs. As the storage 15, it is possible to use, for example, a hard disk, an SSD (Solid State Drive), a tape medium, or the like. The storage 15 stores the sensor information database DBS and the device information database DBD. Although a single storage 15 is provided in this example, this is non-limiting and, for example, multiple storages 15 may be provided. In this case, the multiple storages 15 may include, for example, only one kind of storages (for example, hard disks), or may include multiple kinds of storages.
This “storage” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(1)(A)).
A “learning processing” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0038] The processing unit 28 is configured to control the operation of the device 20 and to perform various processing. The processing unit 28 is configured using, for example, a CPU, an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), an FPGA, or the like. The processing unit 28 may include two or more of these CPU and the like, for example. Further, the processing unit 28 may include a GPU, for example.
This “learning processing” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A server
(2) Multiple devices
(3) A storage
(4) A learning processing
A “server” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0006] A server according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a storage unit, a processing unit, and a communication unit. The storage unit is configured to store multiple pieces of device information that respectively correspond to multiple devices, that are supplied respectively from the multiple devices, and that each include information about a corresponding one of the devices. The processing unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the multiple pieces of device information, one or more devices that are to perform leaning processing, out of the multiple devices. The communication unit is configured to instruct the one or more devices to execute the learning processing.
The components defining the claimed server are part of any well understood, routine and conventional server. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(Il)).
A “multiple devices” limitation is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0012] Each of the multiple devices 20 is a device having a communication function, and is an loT (Internet Of Thing) device or a sensor device, for example. Such a device 20 is applied to, for example, a smartphone, a smart meter, a digital camera, a drone, a vehicle, or the like. The multiple devices 20 are coupled to the server 10 via a public telecommunication network 101, and are configured to be able to communicate with the server 10. As the public telecommunication network 101, it is possible to use, for example, 3G (8rd Generation), LTE (Long Term Evolution), LPWAN (Low Power Wide Area Network), wireless LAN (Local Area Network), or the like. Further, the multiple devices 20 are coupled to each other via, for example, a closed telecommunication network 102, and are configured to be able to communicate with each other. It is to be noted that this is non-limiting, and the multiple devices 20 may be coupled to each other via the public telecommunication network 101.
Note that the claimed “multiple devices” are any device that may be connected to a server through a network. This means any “client” to the server is one of the claimed “multiple devices”.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “storage” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0018] The memory 14 is configured to store data to be used when the processing unit 16 executes a program. The memory 14 is configured using a RAM (Random Access Memory), for example. Specifically, as the RAM 14, it is possible to use, for example, a DRAM (Dynamic RAM), an MRAM (Magnetoresistive RAM), an NVRAM (Non- Volatile RAM), or the like.
[0019] The storage 15 is configured to store various programs. As the storage 15, it is possible to use, for example, a hard disk, an SSD (Solid State Drive), a tape medium, or the like. The storage 15 stores the sensor information database DBS and the device information database DBD. Although a single storage 15 is provided in this example, this is non-limiting and, for example, multiple storages 15 may be provided. In this case, the multiple storages 15 may include, for example, only one kind of storages (for example, hard disks), or may include multiple kinds of storages.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “learning processing” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0038] The processing unit 28 is configured to control the operation of the device 20 and to perform various processing. The processing unit 28 is configured using, for example, a CPU, an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), an FPGA, or the like. The processing unit 28 may include two or more of these CPU and the like, for example. Further, the processing unit 28 may include a GPU, for example.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 12 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites:
13. The learning system according to claim 12, wherein
the one or more devices include two or more devices,
the multiple devices except the two or more devices include a first device,
each of the two or more devices generates learning model information by performing the learning processing and transmits the learning model information to the first device, and
the first device integrates two or more pieces of the learning model information.
Applicant’s Claim 13 merely teaches unspecified multiple devices, the generation and transmission of unspecified information, and the integration of unspecified information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 13 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
14. The learning system according to claim 12, wherein
the one or more devices are a single second device,
the multiple devices include a first device,
the second device generates learning model information by performing the learning processing and transmits the learning model information to the first device.
Applicant’s Claim 14 merely teaches multiple devices and the generation and transmission of information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 14 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 AUG 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
Without acquiescing to the Examiner’s grounds of rejection, Applicant hereby amends the claims in order to more clearly recite statutory subject matter. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite “abstract ideas that ... [are] “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts,” which the Applicant does not concede, the claims are patent eligible because the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the alleged judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the alleged judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
For example, the claims recite the combination of additional elements of “selectively control, by selecting devices of the one or more devices determined to perform learning processing based on the selected devices having learning processing times being within the predetermined time limit, transmission of the instruction information to the determined one or more devices.” With these additional elements, it may now be possible (but not required) that by determining devices having sufficient computing resources, and selectively controlling transmission of instruction information by selecting devices of the one or more devices determined to have sufficient computer resources, the learning processing time is shorter.
Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application and is eligible because it is not directed to the alleged judicial exception.
According to the Amendment and Applicant's Argument, the number of options for devices to be selected may be one. In that case, there is no “selection” between alternative devices at all. If the invention is to operate at all, it must select the only option available. In the broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended matter is a distinction without a difference.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive on that point alone.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Similar amendments for independent claim 12 are similarly unpersuasive.
Since there is no eligible matter that may be incorporated by reference to the dependent claims, Applicant's argument regarding the dependent claim is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
29 NOV 2025
Prosecution Insights