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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 09/22/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are pending. The amendment have avoided the 112(f) interpretation by removing the limitations that invoked 112(f) and overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) as set forth in previous office action.
Response to Arguments
In respond to applicant’s argument regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on page 12-13, “In the amended claim 1, details of the mapping, including the handling of the quantifier "form", are shown procedurally, and the pre-stage normalization of machine processing beyond mere "reference of mathematical relations (Mathematical Concepts)" is specified. Next in the evaluation process (above process(2)) … Furthermore, in the output process (above process (3)), it is required to generate data graph display in which differences between grids can be visually distinguished.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amended claim further recites the step of performing conversion by mapping a propositional formula to a corresponding element of a Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra and eliminating a quantifier, which further recites the mathematical operations being performed (see at least [0040] equation 1), and the step of perform evaluation iteratively is also characterized as mathematical operations (see at least figure 2B steps A4 to A7), and the step of output data for graph displaying can be characterized as abstract idea or insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two (see rejection below for more details).
Applicant further asserted on page 13, “Data generation for display itself is defined as a function of the machine device and is a process that cannot be achieved by human mental action.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim merely recites generate data for displaying a graphical representation, such limitation can be achieved by human using pen and paper, such that one of ordinary skill in the art can perform evaluation and generate a graphical representation to visually distinguishes between the grids determined to be inside, on the boundary of, or outside of the solution space.
Applicant further asserted on page 13, “As described above, the process of one or more example embodiments of the application is implemented as an ordered combination of mapping (T1—T2-—-T3) — quantifier elimination (including reduction if necessary) — three-label-classification by grid iteration — visualization data generation, and is inseparably linked to the construction and updating of an internal data structure in a specific machine and machine-readable output (data with visual distinction). Architectural unity that cannot be grasped in the abstract frame of "calculating and displaying results" is also clear in the specification.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim does not recite a specific machine, the claim merely recites a device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor to execute the instructions to perform the abstract idea, such computer components are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it”, such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further asserted on page 13-14, “In addition, one or more example embodiments of the application explicitly reformulate the "problem of calculating conditional probabilities" into the "problem of calculating a range of values that can be taken in real variable group" by the conversion process, and results in range determination under constrained conditions. This is not merely a result presentation, but an improvement of the device function of converting the representation system of input knowledge (PF group and probability information) into a structure suitable for machine processing, and practical integration that directly contributes to automatic determination and visualization in the later stage.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps of conversion process and range determination are characterized as the abstract idea under step 2A prong two, and MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. Thus, any arguably improvement is a direct consequence of performing the conversion and range determination, which are the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim does not recite automatic determination and visualization, but the claim merely recites processor at a high level of generality to perform the abstract ideas.
Applicant further asserted on page 14, “When properly considered as a whole, the amended claims, even though they contain mathematical elements, are integrated into practical applications through attribution to a specific machine, generation and use of a machine-readable internal data structure (grid + three-valued label), generation of output data retaining topological information, and ordered combination of these. Therefore, in light of Step 2A (Prong Two), the invention cannot be said to be "substantially directed to" an abstract idea, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection are not reasonable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Examiner had considered the claim as a whole under step 2A prong two and step 2B, in which the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept step 2B. Furthermore, the claim does not recite a specific machine, but recites a machine at a high level of generality to perform the mathematical operations or abstract idea and the step of iteratively evaluating the grids is considered as abstract idea (see rejection below for details).
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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a device
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula, such as convert conditional probabilities, which are a calculation target of a range of values that can be taken, into real number variables by mapping, for each of the conditional probabilities, a propositional formula to a corresponding element of a Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra, and eliminating a quantifier of a sort 'form' from a first-order formula associated with the element of the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra to generate a corresponding one of the real number variables (figure 2A step 2A[0050-0056] describes an algorithm for conversion, which composite mapping for applying three mappings T1, T2, and T3 using mathematical equations 2-4, see at least [0039-0040] describes the steps of converting probabilities to real number using element of the Lindenbraum-Tarski algebra L in equation 1, which consequently eliminate the quantifier) and calculate a range of values that the real number variables can take of the real number variables using constraint conditions indicating real number first-order formulas obtained by converting a first set of first-order formulas and a second set of first-order formulas, the first set of first-order formulas characterizing a function for receiving a pair of propositional formulas and returning conditional probabilities between events represented by the pair and the second set of first-order formulas representing at least one of a known value of a conditional probability and a mutual relation of conditional probabilities, wherein the calculation comprises iteratively evaluating, for each of a plurality of hypercube grids that partition a unit hypercube, whether the grid is inside, on a boundary of, or outside of a solution space defined by the constraint conditions; (Figures 2A-2B steps A3-A7 [0057-0069, 0123] describes an algorithm to calculate a range of values of the real number variables can take using at least mathematical equations 5-6. Also see step 2B for iteratively evaluating in step A6 figure 2B [0045, 0058, 0059] describes the concept of evaluating for each of a plurality of hypercube grids whether the grid is inside, outside or boundary). The claim further recites a step to generate data for displaying a graphical representation of the calculated range of values, wherein the graphical representation visually distinguishes between the grids determined to be inside, on the boundary of, or outside of the solution space. Such limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance using pen and paper, such that one of ordinary skills in the art can generate data for displaying graphical representation of the calculated range of values on paper similar to figure 5, where it visually distinguishes between the grids determined. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts / Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites an information processing device comprising at least one memory configured to store instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of processing data and storing data. Alternatively, the step of generating data for displaying a graphical representation of the calculated range of values, wherein the graphical representation visually distinguishes between the grids determined to be inside, on the boundary of, or outside of the solution space can also be considered as additional element. However, such limitation of generating data for displaying a graphical representation is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity because it is mere data gathering or data outputting. Such additional elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to the step 2A prong two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more mere instructions to apply the exception. The limitation of generating data for displaying a graphical representation is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two and determined to be well-understood routine and conventional under step 2B (see at least Hennessy, John L., et al. Computer Architecture : A Quantitative Approach, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central page 865 figure 8.48 discloses a DSP processing data and a microcontroller generate data for displaying a graphic representation) Thus, the claim does not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 2 further recites wherein the first set of first-order formulas and the second set of first-order formulas are allowed to have content expressed using Boolean connectives and quantifiers with respect to inequalities and equalities between higher-order polynomials that can be expressed by conditional probability logical formulas. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (such as describing the first and second set of formulas to be expressed using Boolean and quantifier, see [0027, 0051] describes mathematical formula having logical connective and quantifier]). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites propositional variables used in the conversion are stored. Such step of storing data for used in mathematical operation is considered as insignificant extra solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering, under step 2A prong two and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) storing and retrieving information in memory). Thus, such limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer element. Accordingly, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites the step to evaluate, with designated accuracy, the range of values that the real number variables can take at a time when the real number first- order formulas are set as the constraint conditions. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least Figures 2A-2B steps A3-A7 [0057-0067] describes an algorithm to calculate a range of values of the real number variables can take). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites the step of performing the evaluation of the range by determining truth value of a real number closed logical formula concerning the range of values that the real number variables can take at the time when the real number first-order formulas are set as the constraint conditions. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least Figures 2A-2B steps A3-A7 [0057-0067] describes an algorithm to calculate a range of values of the real number variables can take). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 further recites creates a graph representing the range of values that the real number variables can take at a time when the real number first-order formulas are set as the constraint condition. Such limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance using pen and paper, such that one of ordinary skills in the art can create a line graph similar to figure 10 using the calculated values. Thus, such limitation falls under the mental process grouping of the abstract idea under step 2A prong one. The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 8-12 and 14 recite method claims that would be practiced by the apparatus claims 1-5 and 7. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15-19 recite product claims having similar limitations as the apparatus claims 1-5. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 15 further recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute, such additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, e.g., generic computer components performing generic computer functions of storing and executing program, which fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is 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 HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at (571) 270-3995. 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2183 (571)272-2764
/JYOTI MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2183