DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-8 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1 and 3-8, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• compare data during learning and data during prediction for each feature amount of data the feature amount including numerical values, categories, or text, by performing a first comparison method (i.e., mental steps) for numerical values and a second comparison method (i.e., mental steps) for categories or text, to determine whether the data during learning and the data during prediction are similar (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper) for each feature amount;
• determine a ratio value (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper) of a number of feature amounts determined to not be similar to a total number of feature amounts;
• determine that accuracy of a machine learning model has deteriorated when the ratio is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper)
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. A detection device comprising…” Therefore, it is a “device” (or “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts”:
• compare data during learning and data during prediction for each feature amount of data the feature amount including numerical values, categories, or text, by performing a first comparison method (i.e., mental steps) for numerical values and a second comparison method (i.e., mental steps) for categories or text, to determine whether the data during learning and the data during prediction are similar (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper) for each feature amount;
• determine a ratio value (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper) of a number of feature amounts determined to not be similar to a total number of feature amounts;
• determine that accuracy of a machine learning model has deteriorated when the ratio is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processing circuitry configured to”
A “processing circuitry configured to” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “processing circuitry configured to” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processing circuitry configured to”
A “processing circuitry configured to” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The detection device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to compare the data during learning and the data during prediction for each value of the objective variable and determines whether they are similar.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches a mathematical comparison. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “4. A detection method executed by a detection device, comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 4 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 4 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts”:
• compare data during learning and data during prediction for each feature amount of data the feature amount including numerical values, categories, or text, by performing a first comparison method (i.e., mental steps) for numerical values and a second comparison method (i.e., mental steps) for categories or text, to determine whether the data during learning and the data during prediction are similar (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper) for each feature amount;
• determine a ratio value (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper) of a number of feature amounts determined to not be similar to a total number of feature amounts;
• determine that accuracy of a machine learning model has deteriorated when the ratio is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain no “additional elements”.
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain no “additional elements”.
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “5. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a detection program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising…” Therefore, it is a “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” (or “product of manufacture”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 5 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 5 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts”:
• compare data during learning and data during prediction for each feature amount of data the feature amount including numerical values, categories, or text, by performing a first comparison method (i.e., mental steps) for numerical values and a second comparison method (i.e., mental steps) for categories or text, to determine whether the data during learning and the data during prediction are similar (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper) for each feature amount;
• determine a ratio value (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper) of a number of feature amounts determined to not be similar to a total number of feature amounts;
• determine that accuracy of a machine learning model has deteriorated when the ratio is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (i.e., a mathematical determination, which could be done in the mind with pencil and paper)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain no “additional elements”.
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain no “additional elements”.
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
6. The detection device according to claim 1, wherein the first comparison method is a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
Applicant’s Claim 6 merely teaches a mathematical method of comparison. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 6 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. The detection device according to claim 6, wherein the second comparison method uses a term frequency/inverse document frequency (TE/IDF) vector.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches a mathematical method of comparison. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
8. The detection device according to claim 7, wherein terms of the TF/IDF vector include appearance frequency and rarity of each feature amount.
Applicant’s Claim 8 merely teaches a mathematical method of comparison. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 JUN 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:.
Argument 1
It is believed that the amendments to the claims clarify that the claims of this application are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For example, amended Claim 1 recites:
***
As explained during the interview, the detection device recited in Claim 1 solves a particular problem in current machine model technology: the ability to identify accuracy deterioration in a trained model without needing to use data sets for which the answers are known. Instead, the inventive features of Claim 1 define comparing data during learning (i.e., the data used to train the model) with data during prediction (i.e., real-world data to which the trained model is applied) to determine feature amount similarities among the two sets of data.
When a ratio of the number of feature amounts that are not similar to the total number of feature amounts reaches a predetermined threshold, the model is deemed to have deteriorated. Thus, the features recited in amended Claim 1 represent a technological improvement in machine learning because conventional systems rely on data sets for which the correct answer is known. Therefore integrate any abstract idea upon which they might touch into a practical application.
Note that the claimed “machine model” is “comparisons” and “similarity” determinations. This is an abstract idea, not a “technology”.
Further, in the Specification, the similarity is calculated as a purely mathematical cosine similarity calculated on computer:
[0026] Further, the comparison unit 15a compares the feature amounts represented by categories or text, for example, using a TF (Term Frequency) /IDF (Inverse Document Frequency) vector whose elements are the appearance frequency and rarity of each value of the feature amount. That is, the comparison unit 15a calculates the cosine similarity between the TF/IDF vector of the feature amount during learning and the TF/IDF vector of the feature amount during prediction for each of the feature amount "category 1" represented by category and the feature amount "text 1" represented by text illustrated in Fig. 3. Then, the comparison unit 15a determines that both are not similar when the calculated cosine similarity is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value.
Further, the Specification recites:
[0043] [Program]
A program that describes processing executed by the detection device 10 according to the embodiment in a computer-executable language may be created. As an embodiment, the detection device 10 can be implemented by installing a detection program that executes the detection process as package software or online software in a desired computer. For example, by causing an information processing device to execute the detection program, the information processing device can function as the detection device 10. The information processing device mentioned herein includes a desktop or laptop-type personal computer. In addition, mobile communication terminals such as a smartphone, a cellular phone, or a PHS (Personal Handyphone System), and a slate terminal such as a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) are included in the category of the information processing device. Furthermore, the functions of the detection device 10 may be implemented in a cloud server.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
Moreover, the USPTO's Example 40 is instructive. In Example 40, the claim involves monitoring network traffic and adaptively adjusting the monitoring process based on whether the collected traffic data is anomalous or normal. The USPTO found this claim to be patentable under 35 U.S.C.101 because it improves the technology of network monitoring through adaptation of the monitoring to changing network conditions. As noted above, the claims of the instant application improve upon machine learning technology by allowing identification of accuracy deterioration without the need for prior knowledge of correct answers (a form of adaptation).
For the above reasons, it is believed that the claims of this application are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is respectfully requested.
Example 40’s Claim 1, as a whole, is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. This limits the claim to that practical application. Applicant claims no such practical application.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 3
V. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Rejection
Claim 1 is amended to recite, in part,
***
In contrast, Ma describes clusterer groups query templates based on the similarity of their arrival rate histories (i.e., the temporal patterns of query executions-to reduce the number of forecasting models needed (Ma, p. 631, Abstract; p. 634, § 5). These "arrival rate histories" represent the frequency of query executions over time, not feature amounts of data used during model training ("data during learning") and model application ("data during prediction"). In fact, Ma does not disclose or suggest using data during learning (i.e., training data) to determine deterioration or model accuracy. As best understood, Ma describes using only data during application of the model, Moreover, Ma describes an MSE that evaluates the accuracy of workload forecasting models predicting query arrival rates (Ma, p. 638, § 7.2). This is a standard metric for model evaluation, not a mechanism for detecting deterioration over time due to data distribution shifts.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection is WITHDRAWN because the claimed ratio of features is not in the cited art of record.
Argument 4
Also, as explained during the interview, amended Claim 1 recites two different comparison methods: one for numeric values and another for categories/text. These features are not disclosed or suggested by Ma who ostensibly describes only one comparison method.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection is WITHDRAWN because the claimed ratio of features is not in the cited art of record.
Argument 5
For the above reasons, it is believed that Ma does not disclose or suggest the features of amended Claim 1, and amended Claim 1 is believed to be in condition for allowance together with any claim depending therefrom. Amended Claims 4-5 are also believed to be in condition for allowance. Withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is respectfully requested.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection is WITHDRAWN because the claimed ratio of features is not in the cited art of record. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections stand.
Argument 6
VI. New Claims New
Claims 6-8 recite features not disclosed in the art of record and are believed to be allowable, Non-limiting support for the new claims may be found at least at paragraphs [0028]-[0031] of the published application.
New 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are applied for the new claims.
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
12 SEP 2025
Prosecution Insights