DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 112 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn in part and Maintained in part.
The rejection of the “iteratively modify” limitation was not addressed and support could not be found in the cited paragraphs, or the specification as a whole.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: The acquiring and outputting steps integrate the claim into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the acquiring step is data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g) and the outputting step is use of a computer as a tool MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), both of which are not sufficient to show integration into a practical application.
Applicant’s Argument: Specification [0028]-[0031], [0053]-[0054], [0071] and [0060]-[0065] show the improvement.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the present claims do not reflect the purported improvements cited by the Applicant, with reference to the sections of the specification cited in the arguments. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer as well as any other technology or technical field. Additionally, the cited paragraph [0071] shows that the claim is math calculations using one processing device and general computer transmission in another portion. Additionally, the cited paragraph [0071] shows that the claim is math calculations by defining the calculations and equations.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are analogous to example 41.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees, with Applicant’s argument that the claims are analogous to Example 41. While multiple steps of Example 41 were found to contain abstract ideas, the combination of additional elements used mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific use that limits the use to the practical application of transmitting the ciphertext word signal to a computer terminal over a communication channel. This integrated the judicial exception into a practical application as it secures private network communications, so that a ciphertext word signal can be transmitted between computers of people who do not know each other or who have been shared a private key between them in advance of the message being transmitted, where the security of the cipher relies on the difficulty of factoring lager integers by computers. Here, the claims do not create a ciphertext word signal that is transmitted between computers. The claims contain the abstract limitations of performing calculations, correcting generation probabilities, modifying the generation probabilities and extracting second nonlinear basis functions which does not make the claim eligible at Step 2A prong 2. Therefore, the Examiner believes the claims are not analogous to Example 41 as they do not contain similar limitations that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are analogous to McRo.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not provide a clear improvement to technology or computer functionality. The claims of McRo recite automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation, which provided a clear improvement to a computer functionality (i.e. computer animation). In contrast, the instant claims do not recite an analogous improvement to a computer functionality. The claims recite a generic machine learning model with correction of a hyperparameter and output of information associated with a linear regression equation. The claims employ generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea that MPEP 2106.05(f), even while limiting the use of the idea to a particular technical environment, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are analogous to Enfish.
Examiner’s Response: The present claims do not provide an analogous improvement to the computer to that of Enfish, specifically because the present claims do not improve the computer itself. The improvements of a self-referential table provide a specific benefit to the functioning of the computer, which is not the case in the claims of the instant application. The present claims are directed to a generic machine learning model with correction of a hyperparameter and output of information associated with a linear regression equation, which is not an improvement to the computer itself. Rather, this is an improvement to the abstract idea associated with “Mathematical Concepts.”
Applicant’s Argument: The claims improve computer based physical modeling.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the improvement is not expressed through the additional elements of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”.
Thus, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 7 similarly recite the limitation “iteratively modify the generation probabilities of the respective nonlinear basis functions to reduce a number of candidate regression equations evaluated, thereby improving convergence stability of the machine learning.” It does not appear that the instant specification has support for the amended claims. When looking at [0028], [0058] and [0071] as suggested by Applicant, adequate support could not be found. Since support for the amended limitation could not be found, the amended limitation is different in scope than the disclosed invention at the time of filing, thus the amended limitation is new matter.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4, 6 and 13 are directed to a device, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 7 is directed to a device, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 and 7 recite the abstract idea of generating a non-linear and linear regression equation, constituting an abstract idea based on mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. The limitation of "perform calculation by using the detection result and the nonlinear basis functions of the sub-libraries, extract nonlinear basis functions from the sub-libraries including the nonlinear basis functions on a basis of the generation probabilities, generate a plurality of linear regression equations, in which the nonlinear basis functions of the plurality of types of sub-libraries are combined, for calculating the dependent variable, estimate coefficients of the linear regression equations by machine learning, and calculate loss functions of the linear regression equations by using a result of the calculation;” covers mathematical concepts including the generation of equations and mathematical calculations. Additionally, the limitation of “correct the generation probabilities and a hyperparameter of the machine learning on a basis of the loss functions of the linear regression equations when a predetermined condition is not met;” covers mathematical calculations as values are added or subtracted based on if the equation is more or less than the threshold value (See Page 12 First Full Paragraph). Additionally, the limitation of “iteratively modify the generation probabilities of the respective nonlinear basis functions to reduce a number of candidate regression equations evaluated, thereby improving convergence stability of the machine learning” covers mathematical calculations as the probabilities of basis functions are modified and equations are reduced. Additionally, the limitation of “extract nonlinear basis functions on a basis of the corrected generation probabilities from the sub-libraries including the nonlinear basis functions, generate linear regression equations, in which the nonlinear basis functions of the plurality of types of sub-libraries are combined, estimate coefficients of the linear regression equations by machine learning using the corrected hyperparameter, and calculate loss functions of the linear regression equations; and” covers mathematical concepts including calculations and generation of equations. Additionally, the limitation of “wherein the linear regression equation represents a thermal model of the electronic apparatus including the plurality of sensors;” covers mathematical concepts including defining an equation. In claim 7, the limitation of “extract, based on generation probabilities, a second function from first functions nonlinear basis functions, the first functions being based on a dependent variable or an independent variable and being included in each of a plurality of types of sub-libraries, each of the generation probabilities being a probability by which the second function is selected from the first functions for each of the sub-libraries, wherein the plurality of types of sub-libraries correspond to distinct physical heat transfer mechanisms and include two or more of a heat conduction sub-library, a radiation sub-library, a forced convection sub-library, a natural convection sub-library, and a heat generation sub-library;” covers mathematical calculations as a calculations are being performed on mathematical functions. Additionally in claim 7, the limitation of “generate a plurality of linear regression equations for calculating the dependent variable, each of the plurality of linear regression equations being generated by combining a plurality of second functions, each of the second functions being extracted for each of the sub-libraries;” covers mathematical concepts including the generation of equations and mathematical calculations. (Specification page 5 Fourth full paragraph “The information processing device 1 outputs a linear regression equation capable of outputting the temperature of the electronic apparatus 2, as the model.”) Additionally in claim 7, the limitation of “calculate loss functions of each of the plurality of linear regression equations; and”, covers mathematical concepts including mathematical calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6 and 13 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 7, the additional elements of “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “machine learning”, “an output unit”, “a display”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The output unit and modules are shown as part of the computer in claim1 and are interpreted as such. The limitations of “a memory configured to store therein a plurality of types of sub-libraries including respective nonlinear basis functions based on a dependent variable or an independent variable, and generation probabilities of the nonlinear basis functions included in the sub-libraries, wherein the plurality of types of sub-libraries correspond to distinct physical heat transfer mechanisms and include two or more of a heat conduction sub-library, a radiation sub-library, a forced convection sub-library, a natural convection sub-library, and a heat generation sub-library; and”, “one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:”, “output, to an output unit, a linear regression equation selected from the linear regression equations generated by the regression equation generation module or the regression equation regeneration module when the condition is met”, in claim 1, as well as “wherein the one or more processors are configured to output, to the output unit, information on linear regression equations selected according to a rank order based on the loss functions of the linear regression equations” in claim 6, as well as “wherein the output unit is configured to transmit the linear regression equation to another information processing device configured to calculate predicted temperatures of the electronic apparatus” in claim 13, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The limitation of “a sensor”, “an electronic apparatus” in claims 1 and 7 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation of “output, via a display of the output unit, information associated with the linear regression equation” in claim 1, and “output one or more linear regression equations selected from the plurality of linear regression equations when a condition based on the loss functions of each of the plurality of linear regression equations is met,” in claim 7 amounts to extra-solution activity in the form of outputting. (MPEP 2106.05(G)) This is akin to “selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display,” which has been identified by the courts as extra-solution activity. The limitation of “acquire a detection result from a plurality of sensors arranged in an electronic apparatus, the detection result including temperature, voltage, current and airflow velocity measurements at multiple spatial positions;” in claims 1 and 7, amounts to extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution data gathering. (MPEP 2106.05(G)) This is akin to performing clinical tests on individuals (sensors on portions of a system) to obtain input for an equation which has been identified by the courts as extra-solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6 and 13 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 7, the additional elements of “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “machine learning”, “an output unit”, “a display”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The output unit and modules are shown as part of the computer in claim1 and are interpreted as such. The limitations of “a memory configured to store therein a plurality of types of sub-libraries including respective nonlinear basis functions based on a dependent variable or an independent variable, and generation probabilities of the nonlinear basis functions included in the sub-libraries, wherein the plurality of types of sub-libraries correspond to distinct physical heat transfer mechanisms and include two or more of a heat conduction sub-library, a radiation sub-library, a forced convection sub-library, a natural convection sub-library, and a heat generation sub-library; and”, “one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:”, “output, to an output unit, a linear regression equation selected from the linear regression equations generated by the regression equation generation module or the regression equation regeneration module when the condition is met”, in claim 1, as well as “wherein the one or more processors are configured to output, to the output unit, information on linear regression equations selected according to a rank order based on the loss functions of the linear regression equations” in claim 6, as well as “wherein the output unit is configured to transmit the linear regression equation to another information processing device configured to calculate predicted temperatures of the electronic apparatus” in claim 13, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The limitation of “a sensor”, “an electronic apparatus” in claims 1 and 7 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation of “output, via a display of the output unit, information associated with the linear regression equation” in claim 1, and “output one or more linear regression equations selected from the plurality of linear regression equations when a condition based on the loss functions of each of the plurality of linear regression equations is met,” in claim 7 amounts to extra-solution activity in the form of outputting. (MPEP 2106.05(G)) This is akin to “selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display,” which has been identified by the courts as extra-solution activity. The limitation of “acquire a detection result from a plurality of sensors arranged in an electronic apparatus, the detection result including temperature, voltage, current and airflow velocity measurements at multiple spatial positions;” amounts to extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution data gathering. (MPEP 2106.05(G)) This is akin to performing clinical tests on individuals (sensors on portions of a system) to obtain input for an equation which has been identified by the courts as extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining how coefficients of the equations are calculated, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the dependent variables of the equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the independent variables of the equation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O’Shea US2019/0274108: Also teaches the use of a linear basis function and loss function, with hyper parameters to improve a communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188