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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “…the bone which color is similar the cell tissue in the patient clinical image” should read “…the bone which is similar in color to the cell tissue in the patient clinical image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-10 and 13-20 are further objected to for dependency on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “spurious correlation” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “spurious correlation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the measurement which renders the correlation to be “spurious”. Thus, “correlation” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “spurious”.
The term “color is similar” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “color is similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the degree of similarity for the color. Thus, “color” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “similar”.
Claims 3-10 and 13-20 are further rejected for dependency on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
For examination purposes: the term “spurious correlation” and “color is similar” will be interpreted as a difference meeting a threshold value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculating …a first loss according to a plurality of prediction labels generated from an output layer of the plurality of neural network structural layers according to the plurality of training samples, wherein the first loss is calculated by comparing the plurality of prediction labels with a plurality of training labels of the plurality of training samples, wherein spurious correlation exists between the plurality of extraction features and the plurality of training labels”
“calculating …a second loss according to the plurality of extraction features generated from the classification model according to the plurality of training samples, wherein the second loss is calculated according to statistical independence between the plurality of extraction features, and wherein the second loss is expressed as:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein n is a positive integer and is a quantity of the training samples, p and q are positive integers, m is a positive integer, j and k are positive integers and are not more than m, Hi,j and Hi,k are the extraction features, and the second loss corresponds to one, which is before the output layer, of the plurality of neural network structural layers”
“performing …a plurality of updating operations for the model parameter according to the first loss and the second loss to remove an explicit spurious correlation between the plurality of extraction features of bone and the plurality of training labels of lesion caused by cell tissue of the lesion and the bone which color is similar the cell tissue in the patient clinical image to train the classification model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and indications of a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations:
“by the processor”
“performing, by the processor, a classification model according to the model parameter, wherein the classification model comprises a plurality of neural network structural layers, and a plurality of training samples is input to the classification model to generate a plurality of extraction features through the plurality of neural network structural layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“obtaining, by a processor, a model parameter from a memory”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitations:
“performing, by the processor, image classification by using the trained classification model”
As drafted, are additional elements that merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”, “insignificant extra-solution activity”, or indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Specifically, the obtaining limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply an exception. insignificant extra-solution activity, and indications of a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the plurality of extraction features correspond to the one of the plurality of neural network structural layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculating …a plurality of loss differences according to the first loss and the second loss”
“performing… a plurality of backpropagation operations for the classification model according to the plurality of loss differences to update the model parameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by the processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculating …a third loss according to average treatment effect between the plurality of extraction features and a plurality of training labels of the plurality of training samples, wherein the plurality of extraction features correspond to the one of the plurality of neural network structural layers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by the processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculating …a plurality of loss differences according to the first loss, the second loss and the third loss”
“performing …a plurality of backpropagation operations for the classification model according to the plurality of loss differences to update the model parameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by the processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculating …the second loss according to average treatment effect between a plurality of extraction features and a plurality of training labels of the plurality of training samples, wherein the plurality of extraction features correspond to the one of the plurality of neural network structural layers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by the processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculating …a plurality of loss differences according to the first loss and the second loss”
“performing …a plurality of backpropagation operations for the classification model according to the plurality of loss differences to update the model parameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by the processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the output layer comprises at least one fully connection layer, and the one of the plurality of neural network structural layers comprise at least one convolutional layer”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a machine learning method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the classification model is a neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculate a first loss according to a plurality of prediction labels generated from an output layer of the plurality of neural network structural layers according to the plurality of training samples, wherein the first loss is calculated by comparing the plurality of prediction labels with a plurality of training labels of the plurality of training samples, wherein spurious correlation exists between the plurality of extraction features and the plurality of training labels”
“calculate a second loss according to the plurality of extraction features generated from the classification model according to the plurality of training samples, wherein the second loss is calculated according to statistical independence between the plurality of extraction features, and wherein the second loss is expressed as:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein n is a positive integer and is a quantity of the training samples, p and q are positive integers, m is a positive integer, j and k are positive integers and are not more than m, Hi,j and Hi,k are the extraction features, and the second loss corresponding to one, which is before the output layer, of the plurality of neural network structural layers”
“perform a plurality of updating operations for the model parameter of the classification model according to the first loss and the second loss to remove an explicit spurious correlation between the plurality of extraction features of bone and the plurality of training labels of lesion caused by cell tissue of the lesion and the bone which color is similar the cell tissue in the patient clinical image to train the classification model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and indications of a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations:
“A machine learning device for a patient clinical image, comprising: a memory, configured for storing a plurality of instructions and a model parameter; a processor, coupled with the memory, wherein the processor is configured to run a classification model, and is configured to execute the instructions”
“perform the classification model according to the model parameter, wherein the classification model comprises a plurality of neural network structural layers, and a plurality of training samples is input to the classification model to generate a plurality of extraction features through the plurality of neural network structural layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“obtain the model parameter from the memory”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitations:
“perform image classification by using the trained classification model”
As drafted, are additional elements that merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”, “insignificant extra-solution activity”, or indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Specifically, the obtaining limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply an exception. insignificant extra-solution activity, and indications of a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 11.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the plurality of extraction features correspond to the one of the plurality of neural network structural layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculate a plurality of loss differences according to the first loss and the second loss”
“perform a plurality of backpropagation operations for the classification model according to the plurality of loss differences to update the model parameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 13.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculate a third loss according to average treatment effect between the plurality of extraction features and a plurality of training labels of the plurality of training samples, wherein the plurality of extraction features correspond to the one of the plurality of neural network structural layers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 13.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculate a plurality of loss differences according to the first loss, the second loss and the third loss”
“perform a plurality of backpropagation operations for the classification model according to the plurality of loss differences to update the model parameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculate the second loss according to average treatment effect between the plurality of extraction features and a plurality of training labels of the plurality of training samples, wherein the plurality of extraction features correspond to the one of the plurality of neural network structural layers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 11.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculate a plurality of loss differences according to the first loss and the second loss”
“perform a plurality of backpropagation operations for the classification model according to the plurality of loss differences to update the model parameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 11.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the output layer comprises at least one fully connection layer, and the one of the plurality of neural network structural layers comprise at least one convolutional layer”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a machine learning device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 11.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the classification model is a neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant’s amendments introduce an additional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, as discussed in the rejection above.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts that the amended claims are integrated into a practical application. Specifically, applicant asserts that because a patient clinical image usually has a cell tissue of a lesion and a bone “which color is similar the cell tissue”, it causes the explicit spurious correlation between the extraction feature of the bone and the label of the lesion. Applicant further asserts that to avoid this, the first loss and the second loss are used to update the model parameters of the classification model to train the classification model…thereby increasing accuracy of prediction of the classification model greatly (“Remarks” Pages 10-11).
However, even if the claims did recite an improvement, as written, it would be an improvement in the abstract idea of “performing …a plurality of updating operations for the model parameter according to the first loss and the second loss to remove an explicit spurious correlation…”, which as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, any improvement in the claims would be an improvement in the abstract idea (i.e., the mathematical calculation). The MPEP notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights