DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 1-11 and 15-17 have been presented for examination.
This action is Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter." Here, Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 limitations that recite a processor configured to generate a second model by automatically acquiring a relationship between a parameter included in a first model and a sample, the first model automatically acquiring a relationship between the sample and a label of the sample, the newly proposed claim limitation integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application and does not simply append well understood routine or conventional activities.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant’s newly proposed claim limitations of “generating a second model” to either automatically acquire a relationship between a parameter in a first model and a sample or receive input of a distribution sample, constitute an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. That is, other than reciting “by a model generation device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the manually obtaining a relationship between a parameter included in the first model and a sample. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, in this case a model generation device, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding, Applicant’s newly proposed claim limitation of generating a second model that receives input of a distribution of the sample and outputs a distribution of a function indicating the first model does not overcome the 101 rejection because the activity constitutes the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). ``1All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter. Here, Applicant argues Numata does not disclose or suggest a processor configured to "generate the second model that receives input of a distribution of the sample and outputs a distribution of a function indicating the first model” and none of the other cited references disclose or suggest at least the above features of newly amended claims.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments as Applicant’s arguments are persuasive as Applicant’s newly amended claims overcome the 102 and 103 rejections.
Therefore, the 102 and 103 rejections are Withdrawn.
Claim Objections - Minor Informalities
The following Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
a relationship should be “the relationship”
Claim 4
a point should “the point”
Claim 5
a point should be the point
a function should be the function
Claims 6 and 7
a kernel mean should be the kernel mean
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 1-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 ,10, and 15-17 are directed to a device, which is a machine and is a statutory category invention. Claim 9 is directed to a system, which is a system and is a statutory category invention. Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claims 12-14 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-8 ,10, and 15-17 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 similarly recite an abstract idea because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 similarly recite the limitation generating a second model by automatically acquiring a relationship between a parameter included in a first model and a sample, the first model automatically acquiring a relationship between the sample and a label of the sample cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0019] of the specification.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 similarly recite the limitation generate the second model that receives input of a distribution of the sample and outputs a distribution of a function indicating the first model, cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0092] of the specification.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 similarly recite the limitation wherein the first model is a simulation model for simulating a prediction target, and the first model calculates, as the label of the sample, a prediction result of behavior or a state of the prediction target based on the sample, cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0007] of the specification.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 similarly recite the limitation wherein the parameter is a physical quantity related to the prediction target, cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0021] of the specification.
Claims 1 and 10 similarly recite the limitation wherein the prediction target is a physical distribution system, cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0016] of the specification.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 similarly recite the limitation wherein the sample is a parameter value representing an arrangement of resources and a distribution of goods to be delivered, cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0016] of the specification.
Claims 1 and 10 similarly recite the limitation wherein the prediction result is a prediction result of the arrangement of the resources and the distribution of the goods to be delivered after the predetermined length of time, cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0033] of the specification.
Claim 10 has the limitation calculate a parameter of a first model regarding a given sample by applying a second model to the given sample, the first model automatically acquiring a relationship between a sample and a label of the sample, cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0108] of the specification.
Claim 10 has the limitation the second model automatically acquiring a relationship between a parameter included in the first model and the sample, cover mental processes including assessing the relationship among a sample and a label before generating a second model as described in [0107] of the specification.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 15-17 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “model generation device" as in independent claim 1 and in dependent claims 2-9, “parameter calculation device” as in independent claim 10," system" as in dependent claim 9, “memory” as in independent claims 1 and 10, “processor” as in independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 2-9 and 15-17, "parameter calculation device" as in independent claims 10, and “computer” as in independent claim 11, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of at least one memory configured to store the instructions in independent claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The limitation of at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that receives input of a distribution of the sample and outputs a distribution of the function indicating the first model, in dependent claim 2, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that receives input of a distribution of the sample and outputs a point indicating the function indicating the first model, in dependent claim 3, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that receives input of a point indicating the sample and outputs the distribution of the function indicating the first model, in dependent claim 4, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that receives input of a point indicating the sample and outputs a point indicating a function indicating the first model, in dependent claim 5, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate, as the second model, a function of an RKH Sa reproducing Kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) that receives input of a kernel mean indicating the sample and outputs a kernel mean indicating the first model., in dependent claim 6, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that outputs a kernel mean indicating the first model, in dependent claim 7, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a value of the parameter of the first model based on the kernel mean indicating the first model, in dependent claim 8, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set the parameter included in the first model, using a data set in which the sample and the label of the sample are associated with each other, in dependent claim 9, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of at least one memory configured to store the instructions, in dependent claim 10, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The limitation of wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a parameter of the first model regarding a given sample by applying the second model to the given sample, in dependent claim 15, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-9 and 15-17 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “model generation device" as in independent claim 1 and in dependent claims 2-9, “parameter calculation device” as in independent claim 10," system" as in dependent claim 9, “memory” as in independent claims 1 and 10, “processor” as in independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 2-9 and 15-17, "parameter calculation device" as in independent claims 10, and “computer” as in independent claim 11, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of at least one memory configured to store the instructions in independent claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The limitation of at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that receives input of a distribution of the sample and outputs a distribution of the function indicating the first model, in dependent claim 2, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that receives input of a distribution of the sample and outputs a point indicating the function indicating the first model, in dependent claim 3, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that receives input of a point indicating the sample and outputs the distribution of the function indicating the first model, in dependent claim 4, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that receives input of a point indicating the sample and outputs a point indicating a function indicating the first model, in dependent claim 5, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate, as the second model, a function of an RKH Sa reproducing Kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) that receives input of a kernel mean indicating the sample and outputs a kernel mean indicating the first model., in dependent claim 6, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the second model that outputs a kernel mean indicating the first model, in dependent claim 7, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a value of the parameter of the first model based on the kernel mean indicating the first model, in dependent claim 8, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set the parameter included in the first model, using a data set in which the sample and the label of the sample are associated with each other, in dependent claim 9, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of at least one memory configured to store the instructions, in dependent claim 10, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The limitation of wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a parameter of the first model regarding a given sample by applying the second model to the given sample, in dependent claim 15, these additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-9 and 15-17 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 16 recite “control an operation of the prediction target according to the calculated parameter,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 recites “set the calculated parameter as a parameter value of a controller that controls processing or operation of the prediction target,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 15-17 are objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejections of the claims. The closest pieces of prior art are the NUMATA (WO 2015162879 A1), KATO (US 20150113329 A1), KAWAGUCHI (JP 2002049298 A), LIANG (Gaussian Processes and Polynomial Chaos Expansion for Regression Problem: Linkage via the RKHS and Comparison via the KL Divergence), GENG (Label Distribution Learning), and SAKAKURA (WO 2018092300 A1) references. The closest references alone and in combination do not teach the data sets and variables that are specifically limited to certain values as claimed in the independent claim. Therefore, the claims overcome the closest pieces of prior art such that none of the closest prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims.
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 MARTIN K VU whose telephone number is (703)756-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/M.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186