Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-110283, filed on 07/01/2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but the arguments for the 101 rejections are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: On pages 2-4 of Applicant’s response to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant states that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a machine learning model itself by implementing a loss function that includes an adjustment parameter, which balances the normal label term and an anomaly label term in the loss function. Applicant further states that the improvement in the claimed invention is similar to the improvement in Desjardins.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement (see MPEP §2106.05(a)). The MPEP (§2106.05(a)(II)) also warns, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Here, the alleged improvement in the form of “an adjustment parameter” is an improvement to the abstract idea of the mathematical calculation of a loss value. In the claimed invention, an improvement to an abstract idea itself is recited and the claims as a whole does not describe an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to a technology. The claim as a whole is directed to the computation of a loss function which is an abstract idea of a mathematical computation. The technological improvement of including an adjustment parameter to the loss function is an improvement to the abstract idea of the mathematical calculation.
Applicant argues with reference to Desjardins that the claimed invention is an improvement to the machine learning model. Applicant does not provide any explanation on how the claims of the instant application is similar to the claims in Desjardins. It is not persuasive to state that the instant application and Desjardins are directed to the same solution without providing any details on how the claims of the instant applicant is similar to the process disclosed in Desjardins.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The amended claims do not provide sufficient details to describe any technological improvement. If the specifications explicitly set forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A learning apparatus comprising a processor configured to” and is thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“calculate an anomaly degree indicating a degree to which the data is the anomalous data using an output of a model for the data” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 6-7 and Equation 1 in Spec.)
“calculate a first loss value related to the anomaly degree using a loss function based on (a) an adjustment parameter which is calculated based on a second loss value derived from one or more previously calculated loss values and the label” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 7 and Equation 2 in Spec.)
“update a model parameter of the model so as to minimize the loss value” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 10 in Spec., model parameter is updated using gradient descent calculation)
“wherein the loss function includes a first term relating to a loss of a normal label indicating the normal data and a second term relating to a loss of an anomaly label indicating the anomalous data” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 7 and Equation 2 in Spec.)
“the adjustment parameter is more influential on the loss function when the acquired data has the anomaly label than when the acquired data has the normal label” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 8 and Equation 3 in Spec.)
“the adjustment parameter modulates a relative contribution of the first term and the second term of the loss function to balance the first and second terms and stabilize anomaly degrees output by the model across model updates” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 7-8 and Equation 2 & 3 in Spec.)
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
"acquire data with a label indicating whether the data is normal data or anomalous data” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
"acquire data with a label indicating whether the data is normal data or anomalous data” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Therefore, Claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 7 and Equation 1 in Spec.)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein a probability of appearance of the normal data is higher than a probability of appearance of the anomalous data” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h))
“the processor calculates ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 7 and Equation 1 in Spec.)
“a negative log-likelihood of probability distribution when the model is a variational autoencoder” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 7 and Equation 2 in Spec.)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the processor calculates, ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the loss function increases according to the anomaly degree with respect to the normal data and decreases according to the anomaly degree with respect to the anomalous data” (a mathematical relationship; See pg. 7 and Equation 2 in Spec.)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 5:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“second loss value” (a mathematical calculation and relationship; See pg. 7 and Equation 2 in Spec.)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the processor updates ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 6:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“the second loss value based on a statistic of previously calculated loss values” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 7 and Equation 2 in Spec.)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the processor calculates ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 7:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: None
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the second loss value is a loss value one epoch previous or a loss value one iteration previous in training of the model” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim recites a process (“A learning method executed by a processor, the learning method comprising”) that performs the method as described in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
The claim recites a system (“A non-transitory computer readable medium”; a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter) that performs the method as described in claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed for claim 1. The limitations for additional elements of claim 9 are analyzed below.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Please see Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of claim 1
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 10 recites “An inference apparatus comprising a processor configured to” and is thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“calculate an anomaly degree of the target data using a trained model generated by the learning apparatus according to claim 1” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 6-7 and Equation 1 in Spec.)
Claim 10 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
"acquire target data to be processed” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Therefore, Claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
"acquire data with a label indicating whether the data is normal data or anomalous data” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Therefore, Claim 10 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: None
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the processor is further configured to control display of the anomaly degree” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 12:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“” (a mathematical calculation/relationship; See pg. 7 and Equation 2 in Spec., calculating a value for a parameter based on satisfying a relationship between 2 variables)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the processor updates ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 13:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“” (a mathematical calculation; See pg. 7 and Equation 2 in Spec., calculating a value for a parameter based on satisfying a relationship between 2 variables)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the processor updates ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY MAC whose telephone number is (703)756-1517. The examiner can normally be reached
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on (571) 270-3169. 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.
/GARY MAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2127
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights