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 .
This action is in response to amendments0 filed July 21st, 2025, in which claims 1, 3-7 and 10 have been amended and claims 8-9 and 12-15 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. The amendments to the claims and specification have been entered, and claims 1-7 and 10-11 are currently pending in the case. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
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 claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a device, therefore it falls under the statuary category of machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“calculate a reference value based on a plurality of training data and target data”, “calculate a loss value based on a first distance between the target data and the reference value and a second distance between the target data and the first prediction data”, “apply the plurality of training data to a first weight model to generate first prediction data”, “wherein the plurality of training data and the target data have an unbalanced distribution”, “to update the first weight model based on the calculated loss value” “the loss value increases as the first distance or the second distance increases”, “wherein a first increase amount of the loss value depending on an increase of the second distance when the first distance is a first value is less than a second increase amount of the loss value depending on the increase of the second distance when the first distance is a second value greater than the first value”. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mathematical concepts and thus are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “a preprocessor configured to”, “a learning circuit configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “a preprocessor configured to”, “a learning circuit configured to apply” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of the parent claim is incorporated and further:
Step 1: A machine, as identified in independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites:“wherein the reference value is one of a mode value, a median value, and a mean value associated with the plurality of training data and the target data.” This limitation is a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of the parent claim is incorporated and further:
Step 1: A machine, as identified in independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“perform a normalization operation on a data set from an external training database to generate the plurality of training data and the target data”, “calculate the reference value based on the plurality of training data and the target data”, “calculate the first distance based on the target data and the reference value” These limitations are a mathematical concept, and thus are a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “a normalizing circuit configured to”, “a reference value calculating circuit configured to”, “a first distance calculating circuit configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “a normalizing circuit configured to”, “a reference value calculating circuit configured to”, “a first distance calculating circuit configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of the parent claim is incorporated and further:
Step 1: A machine, as identified in independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“calculate the second distance based on the target data and the first prediction data”, “calculate the first prediction data”, “by applying the training data to the first weight model”, “calculate the loss value based on the first distance and the second distance”, “update a plurality of parameters and a plurality of weights included in the first weight model based on the loss value to generate a second weight model”. These limitations are a mathematical concept, and thus are a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “a first weight model generating circuit configured to generate the first weight model”, “a first prediction calculating circuit configured to”, “a second distance calculating circuit configured to”, “a loss calculating circuit configured to”, “a model updating circuit configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). Further, “from an external weight model database” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, “store the second weight model in the external weight database” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “a first weight model generating circuit configured to generate the first weight model”, “a first prediction calculating circuit configured to”, “a second distance calculating circuit configured to”, “a loss calculating circuit configured to”, “a model updating circuit configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). Further, “from an external weight model database” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, “store the second weight model in the external weight database” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of the parent claim is incorporated and further:
Step 1: A machine, as identified in independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“perform the normalization operation on a data set from an external target database to generate a plurality of input data”, “apply the plurality of input data to a weight model” These limitations are a mathematical concept, and thus is a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the normalizing circuit is further configured to”, “a predicting circuit configured to” The limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). “from the external weight model database to generate result data.” The limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “the normalizing circuit is further configured to”, “a predicting circuit configured to” The limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). “from the external weight model database to generate result data.” The limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of the parent claim is incorporated and further:
Step 1: A machine, as identified in independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part: “generate the weight model”, “calculate result data by applying the plurality of input data to the weight model”, “perform an inverse normalization operation on the second prediction data”. These limitations are a mathematical concept, and thus are a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “a second weight model generating circuit configured to”, “a second prediction calculating circuit configured to”, “an inverse normalizing circuit configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). Further, “from the external weight database” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, “store the inverse normalized second prediction data in an external prediction result database” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “a second weight model generating circuit configured to”, “a second prediction calculating circuit configured to”, “an inverse normalizing circuit configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). Further, “from the external weight database” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, “store the inverse normalized second prediction data in an external prediction result database” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of the parent claim is incorporated and further:
Step 1: A machine, as identified in independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“calculate the loss value using a loss function based on the first distance and the second distance” This limitation is a mathematical concept, and thus is a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the loss calculating circuit is configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “the loss calculating circuit is configured to” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of the parent claim is incorporated and further:
Step 1: A machine, as identified in independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“select one of a plurality of algorithms based on the first distance” This limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mathematical concept, and thus is a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim. Alternatively, it could encompass the mental process of selecting an algorithm based on an observed distance.
“calculate the loss value based on the first distance and the second distance using the selected algorithm” This limitation is a mathematical concept, and thus is a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the learning circuit is further configured to” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. “the learning circuit is further configured to” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of the parent claim is incorporated and further:
Step 1: A machine, as identified in independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“wherein the plurality of training data are time series data” This limitation is a mathematical concept, and thus is a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112f rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn due to claim amendments.
None of he prior art of record, neither alone nor in combination, teach the claimed subject matter of claim 1, "wherein the loss value increases as the first distance or the second distance increases, and wherein a first increase amount of the loss value depending on an increase of the second distance when the first distance is a first value is less than a second increase amount of the loss value depending on the increase of the second distance when the first distance is a second value greater than the first value".
Pertinent art Yudistira et al. ("Prediction of Sequential organelles Localization under imbalance using A Balanced Deep U-Net ", Yudistira et al.) discloses two loss values and the distances increasing as either increases, but does not specifically disclose the specific relationship between them as in the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Cao et al. (US 20200372383 A1) discloses applying a local-adapted minority oversampling strategy technique to an imbalanced dataset including positive samples belonging to a minority class and negative samples belonging to a majority class and normalizing the datasets and calculating distances between them, but does not specifically disclose the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues “"The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima face case of unpatentability." MPEP (citing /n re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, (Fed. Cir. 1992).” and further “the Office has failed to meet its initial burden of "presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability," as required by the MPEP.” However, MPEP 2107.02 relates to Procedural Considerations Related to Rejections for Lack of Utility, whereas claims have been rejected regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. See MPEP § 2106. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to being drawn to an abstract idea, and are not rejected due to a lack of utility.
Applicant next argues “Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 Do Not Articulate Any "Abstract Idea," Under the Directives of the Revised 101 Guidance The 2019 Revised 101 Guidance restricts the universe of patent-ineligible "abstract ideas" to three categories previously recognized by the courts.” and further “To support a finding that the claim "falls within" one of these categories, examiners must identify "specific limitations" in the claim (both individually and in combination) and determine whether the limitations fall within any of the three enumerated categories. Thus, patent claims are automatically eligible unless they are directed to one of these three categories, except in "rare circumstances," which the Office must identify with specificity.” and further “That is, the above-noted claimed features of independent claim 1 are not, and/or would/could not be corresponding to mathematical concepts, as indicated in the above-noted Guidance.” However, the MPEP states “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. The groupings of abstract ideas, and their relationship to the body of judicial precedent, are further discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). The claims are directed to mathematical concepts such as calculating reference values, calculating loss values and calculating distances as well as describing mathematical relationships such as unbalanced data and distances between calculated loss values. Therefore, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mathematical concepts and thus are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues “Additionally, the Office Action has improperly asserted that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. No reasoned rationale has been provided.” However, the MPEP states “For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is an abstract idea. Similarly, if the claim is directed to a law of nature or a natural phenomenon, the rejection should identify the law of nature or natural phenomenon as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain using a reasoned rationale why it is considered a law of nature or natural phenomenon.”. See MPEP § 2106.07(a). Here, the claims have been identified as being directed to an abstract idea, and the analyses has identified the abstract idea as it is recited and explained that it is a mathematical concept, relating to mathematical relationships and formulas. The claims have been identified as being directed to an abstract idea, and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant next argues “For instance, The July 2015 Update states that ...a claimed concept [should] not be identified as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea.” and “Furthermore, the May 2016 Memo states Examiners should not go beyond those concepts that are similar to what the courts have identified as abstract ideas.”. However, the limitations are drawn to mathematical concepts and therefore are concepts that the courts have identified as an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues “In the present case, the Office has failed to provide any rationale evidencing that the claimed subject matter is similar to what the courts have identified as an abstract idea, and has failed to provide any citation of any court-identified cases with respect to the above- noted claimed features as a whole.”. However, the MPEP states “To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea.” and further “If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). The limitations have been considered, and each was found to fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as identified above.
Applicant next argues “When considering whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, "[t]he 'directed to' inquiry ... cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon." See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70-71). Rather, "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims" considered in their entirety, in light of the Specification, to ascertain whether the claims' character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter” and further, “As demonstrated in Section I.A., supra, claims 1-7, 10 and 11 are not drawn to an "abstract idea." Thus, the second step of the Alice analysis need not be examined and there is no need for a search for an "inventive concept" that is "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If the second step of the Alice analysis is performed, however, there are ample "practical applications" and "meaningful limits" in claims 1-7, 10 and 11 to demonstrate patent eligibility.”. However, as stated in the MPEP 2106.04(a) since the claims were determined to be drawn to “an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d)”. Each additional element of the claims was found to amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, merely use a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant next argues “Each element of the claims is implemented in the form of a circuit or hardware. Accordingly, the amended claims recite a specific hardware-based implementation using circuits configured to perform the claimed operations, which amounts to significantly more than a mere abstract idea… Accordingly, even if it could be considered that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims also include an element, or a combination of elements, that are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” However, these limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB Z SUSSMAN MOSS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Kakali Chaki can be reached on (571) 272-3719. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122