DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed on 8/18/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-12 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0019] in part reciting within the last sentence “a monitoring target facility as a leaned model” should be --a monitoring target facility as a learned model-- to correct for apparent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites “A learning device comprising”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
calculate, when inputting the plurality of data as input data to a model and obtaining output data that is output from the model, an attribution that is a degree of contribution of each element of the input data to the output data, based on the input data and the output data: These limitations recite mathematical calculations for determining an attribution that is a degree of contribution of each element of the input data to the output data, based on the input data and the output data, when inputting the plurality of data as input data to a model and obtaining output data that is output from the model.
apply a restriction on the attribution thereto and learn the model, the restriction including setting at least some data values to zero: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of using judgement and evaluation to apply a restricting rule on the observed attribution wherein the applied restriction evaluates at least some data values to zero and using judgement and evaluation to learn to remember the model.
wherein to learn the model apply the restriction where the attribution is changed during learning by using an existing calculation method for the attribution without changing a calculation method for the attribution to reduce noise in the attributions: These limitations recite a mathematical calculation used for changing the attribution when the restriction is applied to learn the model without changing another mathematical calculation for the attribution to reduce noise in the attribution.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
A learning device comprising: processing circuitry configured to: These additional elements merely invoke generic computer machinery used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
collect a plurality of data from a monitoring target facility; output the attribution as a graph to a display: These additional elements represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering of a plurality of data selecting a monitoring target facility as a particular data source to be manipulated and generic outputting attribution results as a graph to a display. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
to allow control of the monitoring target facility based on the attribution: These additional elements are mere instructions to implement the judicial exception of the mathematical calculations to determine the attribution because these additional elements only recite the idea of a solution or outcome but fail to recite details of how control of the monitoring target facility is allowed based on the attribution, e.g. does the attribution grant a binary state of on/off control of the monitoring target facility or a degree of control based on a calculated attribution’s numeric value/etc., thus these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the processing circuitry is further configured to: These additional elements merely invoke generic computer machinery used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, selecting a particular data source to be manipulated, and generic output recited by “collect a plurality of data from a monitoring target facility; output the attribution as a graph to a display” which is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, the additional elements include adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
apply a restriction on the attribution to a loss function that calculates a loss of the model based on the output data and correct answer data and learn the model: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of using judgement to apply the restriction to mathematical calculations with a loss function calculating a loss of the model based on the output data and correct answer data and using judgement and evaluation to learn to remember the model.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: These additional elements merely invoke generic computer machinery used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
add a value that is provided by multiplying an L1 norm of the attribution by a preliminarily set constant, as a restriction on the attribution, to the loss function: These limitations recite mathematical calculations including adding a value, resulting from multiplying an L1 norm of the attribution by a preliminary set constant applied as a restriction on the attribution, to the loss function.
and learn the model in such a manner that a loss that is provided by adding the L1 norm thereto is decreased and a sparsity of the attribution is increased: These limitations recite mathematical relationship requiring learn the model in such a manner that, e.g. organizing information, a loss that is provided by adding the L1 norm thereto is decreased and a sparsity of the attribution is increased, e.g. via mathematical correlations.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: These additional elements merely invoke generic computer machinery used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
calculate, when inputting the plurality of sensor data as input data to a prediction model for predicting a state of the monitoring target facility and obtaining output data that is output from the prediction model, the attribution for each sensor, based on the input data and the output data, and apply a restriction on the attribution thereto and learn the prediction model: These limitations recite mathematical calculation of the attribution for each sensor based on the input data and the output add and applying a restriction on the attribution required to learn the prediction, wherein the mathematical calculation are done when inputting the plurality of sensor data as input data to a prediction model for predicting a state of the monitoring target facility and obtaining output data that is output from the prediction model.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: These additional elements merely invoke generic computer machinery used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
collect a plurality of sensor data from the monitoring target facility: These additional elements represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering of a plurality of sensor data from selecting monitoring target facility as a particular data source to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and selecting a particular data source to be manipulated recited by “collect a plurality of sensor data from the monitoring target facility” which is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the model is one of a discriminant function and a regression function: These limitations recite requiring the model to be one of a mathematical relationships of a discriminant function and a regression function.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: The are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 11
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
wherein the model is a predictive model to predict an anomaly of the monitoring target facility: These additional elements are mere instructions to implement the judicial exception of learning the model by applying the restriction because the additional elements only recite the idea of a solution wherein the model is a predictive model to predict an anomaly of the monitoring target facility but fails to recite details of the predictive model, e.g. is this a particular type of neural network model/etc., and no details are provided as to what/how an anomaly prediction of the monitoring target facility is accomplished, e.g. is the anomaly relative to historical data from other facilities or relative to historical from the particular monitoring target facility/etc., thus these additional elements do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
wherein the monitoring target is a factory or a plant including equipment: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment wherein the monitoring target is a factory or a plant including equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
wherein the plurality of data includes at least one of pressure data, temperature data, sound data, and oscillation data: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment wherein the plurality of data includes at least one of pressure data, temperature data, sound data, and oscillation data. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
calculates the attribution using a saliency map: These limitations recite mathematical calculations for the attribution using a saliency map.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
wherein the processing circuitry: These additional elements merely invoke generic computer machinery used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15
Step 1: a machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the attribution is calculated as a partial differential of the output data with respect to the input data: These limitations recite mathematical calculations for the attribution calculated as a partial differential of the output data with respect to the input data.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: The are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a learning program that causes a computer to act as the learning device according to claim 1: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as a mere recitation that the judicial exception of claim 1 is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a learning program that causes a computer to act, and thus cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5
Step 1: This claim is directed to “An extraction device comprising:”; therefore, this claim is directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
calculate, when inputting the plurality of data as input data to a model and obtaining output data that is output from the model, an attribution that is a degree of contribution of each element of the input data to the output data, based on the input data and the output data: These limitations recite mathematical calculations for determining an attribution that is a degree of contribution of each element of the input data to the output data, based on the input data and the output data, when inputting the plurality of data as input data to a model and obtaining output data that is output from the model.
apply a restriction on the attribution thereto and learn the model, the restriction including setting at least some data values to zero: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of using judgement and evaluation to apply a restricting rule on the observed attribution wherein the applied restriction evaluates at least some data values to zero and using judgement and evaluation to learn to remember the model.
extract, when inputting input data to a learned model that has been learned and obtaining output data that is output from the learned model, an attribution of each element of the input data to the output data, based on the input data and the output data: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with aid of pen and paper of using judgement to evaluate extraction of an attribution of each element of the observed input data to the output data, based on observing the input data and the output data when inputting input data to a learned model that has been learned and obtaining output data that is output from the learned model.
wherein to learn the model apply the restriction where the attribution is changed during learning by using an existing calculation method for the attribution without changing a calculation method for the attribution to reduce noise in the attribution: These limitations recite a mathematical calculation used for changing the attribution when the restriction is applied to learn the model without changing another mathematical calculation for the attribution to reduce noise in the attribution.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
An extraction device comprising: processing circuitry configured to: These additional elements merely invoke generic computer machinery used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
collect a plurality of data from a monitoring target facility; output the attribution as a graph to a display: These additional elements represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering of a plurality of data selecting a monitoring target facility as a particular data source to be manipulated and generic outputting attribution results as a graph to a display. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
the processing circuitry is further configured to: These additional elements merely invoke generic computer machinery used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, selecting a particular data source to be manipulated, and generic output recited by recited by “collect a plurality of data from a monitoring target facility; output the attribution as a graph to a display” which is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, the additional elements include adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as claim 5.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a learning program that causes a computer to act as the extraction device according to claim 5: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as a mere recitation that the judicial exception of claim 5 is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a learning program that causes a computer to act, and thus cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, include mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6
Step 1: This claim is directed to “A learning method comprising:”; therefore, this claim is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception recited in this claim is not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step substantially mirrors that of claim 1.
Step 2B: This claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step substantially mirrors that of claim 1.
Claim 7
Step 1: This claim is directed to “An extraction method comprising:”; therefore, this claim is directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 5.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception recited in this claim is not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step substantially mirrors that of claim 5.
Step 2B: This claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step substantially mirrors that of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed 8/18/2025 traversing the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues within the Remarks filed 8/18/2025 on pages 7-8 that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections should be withdrawn because MPEP explains that determining whether an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application involves determining whether the application describes an improvement to a technology and determining whether the claims recite elements that reflect the improvement. The claims of the instant application integrate any abstract idea upon which they might touch into a practical application, namely neural network and factory monitoring and control. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, Applicant appears to only argue the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis portion of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection by alleging that any abstract ideas recited in the claims are integrated into a practical application and reflects an improvement in technology. Because Applicant does not argue that the claims recite abstract ideas that comprise the judicial exception, Examiner asserts that the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis properly identifies the claim limitations that recite abstract ideas comprising the judicial exception.
Secondly, Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) sets forth the requirements for integration of a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2 analysis and this is further expounded upon in MPEP 2106.07(a) “Formulating a Rejection For Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility”. Examiner asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection adheres to MPEP 2106.07(a) prescription for formulating a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility requiring Subject Matter Eligibility analysis to comprise Step 2A Prong 1 for identifying the judicial exception recited and Step 2A Prong 2 for identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Based upon this analysis Examiner asserts that the claims of the Instant Application as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application using appropriate considerations consistent with those set forth in MPEP because the additional elements analyzed in Step 2A Prong 2, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above.
Thirdly, Applicant’s allegations that the claims are integrated with a practical application because “the claims of the instant application integrate any abstract idea upon which they might touch into a practical application, namely neural network and factory monitoring and control” are not persuasive. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology” and MPEP 2106.05(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”, Examiner asserts that the claim as a whole analysis of the Step 2A Prong 2 determined that the additional elements only include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception, insignificant extra-solution activity that are well-known routine and conventional, adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use which viewed individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception identified in Step 2A Prong 1 analysis. Furthermore, Examiner asserts that at best the independent claims recite improvements to the abstract idea involved in mathematical calculations of attribution that is a degree of contribution of each element and the mentally performable process of applying restriction with corresponding further mathematical calculations to reduce noise which are improvements in the abstract idea itself and is not an improvement in technology. Additionally, Applicant’s specification background [0003] specifically mentions “a problem is provided in that, even if a calculation method for an attribution that eliminate noise is used, interpretation of such an attribution per se may be difficult” there are not any specific discussions detailing specific problems in neural network nor factory monitoring and control and Applicant’s specification [0053] mentions “Furthermore, among respective processes that are explained in the present embodiment, it is also possible to manually execute all or a part of processes that are explained in such a manner that they are executed automatically” which indicates support to interpreting claim limitations as mentally performable processes comprising the judicial exception. Any purported improvements to neural network and factory monitoring and control are provided by the judicial exception alone and thus the judicial exception recited by the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Thus, the claims are patent ineligible as further detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANG FU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30pm ET.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571) 272-7212. 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.
/KC CHEN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143