DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2, 18, and 20 currently amended.
Claims 1, 3, 17, and 19 currently cancelled.
Claims 2, 4-16, 18, and 20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 9 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
The Office Action rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claims 2, 18 and 20 have been amended to recite additional features. The amendments with the additional features are believed to overcome the rejection.
For example, amended claim 2 recites, among other things, "a first model that is machine learned in advance based on an algorithm of a mini-batch gradient descent method" and "outputting information about the determined similarity via a speaker or a display device." Amended claims 18 and 20 recite similar features. Such features render the claims beyond mental process and thus patent legible.
In view of the above, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the included additional features of a model trained based on a mini-batch gradient descent algorithm and outputting of information render the claims into a practical application. Examiner disagrees, the included additional features are mere additional elements that the courts have upheld as judicial exceptions in the past, elements of outputting information to a display are recited at a high level of generality and a machine learning model that is pretrained based on a mini-batch gradient descent algorithm is directed to a particular field of use (batch serialization) for training a machine learning model.
In light of the amendments made on the independent claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 9-10 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103:
The Office Action rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over WO 2019083553 to Hinton in view of an article by Sabour. This rejection is respectfully traversed.
Independent claims 2, 18 and 20 have been amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 3, with is not rejected under this rejection. As such, amended claims 2, 18 and 20 are patentable over the applied references.
Claims 4-16 are also patentable at least in view of the patentability of claim 2, from which they depend, as well as for additional features they recite. Accordingly, withdrawal of the claim rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in light of the amendments made on the claims.
Applicant rolled up previously unrejected dependent claims into the independent claims and as such no new art of reference can be applied.
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
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 2, 4-16, 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent claim 2 recites, in part, a method, therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent claim 18 recites, in part, an apparatus, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine. Independent claim 20 recites, in part, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 2 recites in part:
“associating a first partial range, which is a part of a first data element corresponding to the acquired first intermediate data, with the corresponding first intermediate data, the part of the first data element being a region specified by a position on a vertical axis and a position on a horizontal axis on the first data element”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses associating intermediate data with a region specified on a grid.
“determining a similarity between the first intermediate data and the second intermediate data, for the one or more capsule layers”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining if two pieces of data are similar.
“associating a second partial range, which is a part of a second data element corresponding to the acquired second intermediate data, with the corresponding second intermediate data, the part of the second data element being a region specified by a position on a vertical axis and a position on a horizontal axis on the second data element”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses associating intermediate data with a region specified on a grid.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“one or more processors in a discrimination device”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a first model that is machine learned in advance based on an algorithm of a mini-batch gradient descent method”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“the discrimination device including a data interface and a storage storing a first model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a discrimination device) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“the first model being of a capsule network type including one or more capsule layers each having one or more capsules”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (capsule networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
“performing learning of the first model to reproduce correspondence between a plurality of first data elements included in a first data set and a pre-label corresponding to each of the plurality of first data elements”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“inputting the first data set from an external device through the data interface into the discrimination device and into the learned first model” This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“acquiring first intermediate data included in each of the one or more capsules based on at least one of a first activation and a first pose included in the one or more capsules, for the one or more capsule layers”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“outputting information about the determined similarity via a speaker or a display device”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting/displaying data.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “one or more processors in a discrimination device” and “the discrimination device including a data interface and a storage storing a first model” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element(s) of “the first model being of a capsule network type including one or more capsule layers each having one or more capsules” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (capsule networks) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “performing learning of the first model to reproduce correspondence between a plurality of first data elements included in a first data set and a pre-label corresponding to each of the plurality of first data elements”, “inputting the first data set from an external device through the data interface into the discrimination device and into the learned first model” and “a first model that is machine learned in advance based on an algorithm of a mini-batch gradient descent method” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element(s) of “acquiring first intermediate data included in each of the one or more capsules based on at least one of a first activation and a first pose included in the one or more capsules, for the one or more capsule layers” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra- solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining 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”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The additional element(s) of “outputting information about the determined similarity via a speaker or a display device” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying/outputting a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“inputting the second data element into the first model to discriminate a label of the second data element” This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “inputting the second data element into the first model to discriminate a label of the second data element” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“outputting a discrimination result of the label”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “outputting a discrimination result of the label” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it/they is/are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 6 recites in part:
“the determining of the similarity includes determining the similarity between the first intermediate data of the first partial range and the second intermediate data of the second partial range corresponding to the first partial range”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining if two pieces of data are similar.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a plurality of the capsules”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (capsule networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a plurality of the capsules” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (capsule networks) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“outputting information about the determined similarity, wherein the information about the similarity includes partial range information indicating the first partial range and the second partial range in which the similarity determination is performed”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “outputting information about the determined similarity, wherein the information about the similarity includes partial range information indicating the first partial range and the second partial range in which the similarity determination is performed” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it/they is/are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 8 recites in part:
“the determining of the similarity includes determining the similarity between the first intermediate data of the first partial range and the second intermediate data of the second partial range corresponding to the first partial range, in each capsule layer”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining if two pieces of data are similar.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a hierarchy structure configured of a plurality of layers”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (capsule networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a hierarchy structure configured of a plurality of layers” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (capsule networks) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a plurality of the capsules”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (capsule networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a plurality of the capsules” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (capsule networks) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“outputting information about the determined similarity, wherein the information about the similarity includes partial range information indicating the second partial range in which the similarity determination is performed”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “outputting information about the determined similarity, wherein the information about the similarity includes partial range information indicating the second partial range in which the similarity determination is performed” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it/they is/are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“outputting information about the determined similarity, wherein the information about the similarity includes partial range information indicating the first partial range and the second partial range in which the similarity determination is performed”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “outputting information about the determined similarity, wherein the information about the similarity includes partial range information indicating the first partial range and the second partial range in which the similarity determination is performed” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it/they is/are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 12 recites in part:
“the determining of the similarity includes determining the similarity between the first intermediate data and the second intermediate data in each capsule layer”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining if two pieces of data are similar.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a hierarchy structure configured of a plurality of layers”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (capsule networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a hierarchy structure configured of a plurality of layers” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (capsule networks) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 13:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“outputting information about the determined similarity”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“wherein the information about the similarity further includes at least one of layer label information for identifying a hierarchy of a plurality of the capsule layers, similarity information indicating the similarity for each hierarchy, hierarchy partial range information indicating a hierarchy partial range which is the second partial range in which the similarity determination is performed in each hierarchy, and comparison information indicating a magnitude relationship between the similarity and a predetermined threshold value”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (capsule networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “outputting information about the determined similarity” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it/they is/are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
The additional element(s) of “wherein each of the one or more capsule layers has a hierarchy structure configured of a plurality of layers” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (capsule networks) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 14 recites in part:
“determining of the similarity includes determining the similarity between the first pose and the second pose”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining if two pieces of data are similar.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the first intermediate data includes at least the first pose, the second intermediate data includes at least the second pose”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (image data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the first intermediate data includes at least the first pose, the second intermediate data includes at least the second pose” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (image data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 15:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 15 recites in part:
“determining of the similarity includes determining the similarity between the first activation and the second activation”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining if two pieces of data are similar.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the first intermediate data includes at least the first activation, the second intermediate data includes at least the second activation”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (activation functions) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “the first intermediate data includes at least the first activation, the second intermediate data includes at least the second activation” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (activation functions) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 16:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 16 recites in part:
“determining of the similarity includes weighting the first pose by the first activation, weighting the second pose by the second activation, and determining the similarity between the weighted first pose and the weighted second pose”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining if two pieces of data are similar.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the first intermediate data includes the first pose and the first activation, the second intermediate data includes the second pose and the second activation”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (activation functions) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the first intermediate data includes the first pose and the first activation, the second intermediate data includes the second pose and the second activation” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (activation functions) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 18:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 2, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 2 and 18, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 2 and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2019083553 A1 – Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for a neural network that is configured to receive a network input and to generate a network output for the network input
Hinton, G.E., Sabour, S., & Frosst, N. (2018). Matrix capsules with EM routing. International Conference on Learning Representations. – An important difference between capsules and standard neural nets is that the activation of a capsule is based on a comparison between multiple incoming pose predictions whereas in a standard neural net it is based on a comparison between a single activity vector and a learned weight vector
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 COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
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 Rivas 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.
/COREY M SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128