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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 5/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the claimed invention aims to solve a significant technical problem in the field of multidimensional data decomposition that are inherent to computer-implemented processes involving large-scale data, which are impossible for the human mind to perform even with pen and paper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertions of the computer-implemented processes involving large-scale data is not adequately reflected in the claims. The claim merely recites multidimensional tensor data, which is understood to have the plain meaning of more than one dimension, and does not reflect large-scale data because the number of dimensions is not directly correlated to the amount of data, as shown in the example in Applicant’s specification of Figs. 5-17. Furthermore, “a huge matrix” disclosed in paragraph [0043] is a relative term and does not clearly indicate MTTKRP processing only handles data at a scale that cannot be reasonably performed by the human mind.
Applicant asserts the interpretation of “mental process” based on a small-scale example violates the principles of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Interpreting the claims to encompass trivial, human-performable tasks ignores the technical problem the invention seeks to solve and the context provided by the entire specification, and is inconsistent with the intended use of the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the claims do not adequately reflect large-scale data. Furthermore, the example of Figs. 5-17 is a tensor with three axes, or dimensions, and is thus a multidimensional tensor. Additionally, the indices of dimensions i, j, and k (0 to 3 for each dimension), suggests the exemplary tensor contains at least 64 elements where only 8 of those elements are non-zero. As such, “a huge matrix” may have sparsity resulting in a number of non-zero elements of a similar magnitude of the examples of Figs. 5-17.
Applicant asserts the claims now specify “the processor circuitry” to further clarify that the invention is not merely a mental or mathematical concept performable by a human. The use of “processor circuitry” solidifies the computer-implementation and moves the claimed subject matter away from the realm of abstract ideas.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited “processor circuitry” is equivalent to reciting “apply it” to the abstract ideas. Furthermore, paragraphs such as [0153], [0165], and [0230] in Applicant’s specification disclose the processing circuitry as a CPU, which is a generic computer.
Applicant asserts the invention provides an improvement to the technical problem of increased calculation time and memory usage during multidimensional data decomposition, and crucially, the occurrence of “conflicts” when parallelizing matrix operations in MTTKRP processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the generation of second data remains interpreted as a mental process, thus the improvement is a result of the judicial exceptions alone. However, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant asserts the invention is a meticulously designed data structuring and processing methodology that enables efficient and accurate parallel computation on computer systems, where the “grouping” mechanism fundamentally changes how MTTKRP operations are performed and significantly reducing “calculation time and memory usage”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Changing how MTTKRP operations are performed, and reducing “calculation time and memory usage” are a result of applying the abstract ideas on a computer rather than a result of the computer itself.
Applicant asserts the additional elements such as the acquisition of first data and subsequent generation of second data are integral to how the technical problem of parallel processing conflicts is resolved and are not merely preparatory or post-processing steps.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the generation of second data remains interpreted as a mental process. The acquisition of first data is merely a step of receiving data from memory such that the received first data can be structured in a specific manner to generate the second data. Thus, the acquisition of first data to generate second data remains an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant asserts the explicit recitation of processor circuitry in combination with the “generating” and “performing” steps provides a concrete technical improvement because it enables the processor circuitry to avoid data conflicts in the parallel “performing” steps which significantly reduces computation time and memory usage while ensuring accuracy in the computationally intensive MTTKRP process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processor circuitry is described in at least paragraphs [0153], [0165], and [0230] which describe it as a CPU, which is a generic computer rather that a specific computer component. Furthermore, the processor circuitry is recited at a high level of generality such that it is the equivalent of reciting “apply it” to the judicial exception. Therefore, “the processor circuitry” does not contribute to the technical improvement when viewing the claims as a whole.
Applicant asserts the added recitation of “the processor circuitry” for each step explicitly ties the claimed invention to a specific computer component working in a particular manner to achieve the desired technical outcome. Furthermore, the additional element, in combination with the specific “generating” and “performing” steps provides a concrete technical improvement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons as discussed above.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, which is a statutory category of invention (article of manufacture).
At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing processor circuity of a computer to execute matrix computation processing of multidimensional tensor data using parallel metricized tensor times khatri-rao product (MTTKRP) processing (mathematical calculation), the matrix computation processing comprising: the processor circuitry acquiring, from a memory of the computer, first data that enables, for each of non-zero elements included in multidimensional tensor data, specification of a combination of a value of the element and an index of each dimension that indicates a position of the element;
the processor circuitry generating, on the basis of the acquired first data, second data that enables specification of a plurality of groups obtained by grouping each of the combinations such that the combinations with indexes that overlap with each other are included in different groups (mental process);
and the processor circuitry performing, on the basis of the generated second data, the MTTKRP processing by setting each combination of a plurality of combinations included in the group as a target of parallel processing in the MTTKRP processing related to the tensor data (mathematical calculation and/or mental process).
The limitation “generating… by grouping each of the combinations such that the combinations with indexes that overlap with each other are included in different groups” is a mental process as Figs. 5-17, [0119] - [0151] of applicant’s specification, details the grouping of a three-dimensional tensor with eight non-zero values, which is a reasonable process to be done by a human and thus considered a mental process, as it is within the scope of the claim language. Additionally, the performing MTTKRP processing, with the example in applicant’s specification, may be a mathematical process or math performed as a series of mental steps.
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations “processor circuitry” and “memory” are merely generic computer components recited at a high level of generality. The limitation “acquiring… first data” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, as it merely recites the type of data gathered. MPEP 2106.5(g). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis, the functions of receiving information from memory is recognized by the courts as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the “processor circuitry” and “memory” are the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2, under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “the first data is acquired by generating the first data on the basis of the tensor data”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the generating on the basis of the tensor data is recited at a high level of generality such that it is an insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting type of data to be manipulated, or data gathering, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional elements “arranging a one-dimensional array that indicates each of the combinations included in the group for each group” and “a pointer that specifies any one of the combinations included in the group such that division of the group is possible.” The additional element of arranging does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the arranging is recited at a high level of generality of merely ordering the combinations, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of a pointer does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the pointer is a mere instruction to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)(i).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, it is directed to the mathematical concept and/or mental process “determining whether or not each of elements included in the tensor data is non-zero” and “in the processing of generating, the second data is generated on the basis of a result of the determination”
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “acquiring the tensor data”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the acquiring tensor data is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, it is directed to the mathematical concept and/or mental process of “generating, on the basis of the acquired first data, third data that enables specification of a plurality of groups that corresponds to a predetermined number of parallels obtained by grouping each of the combinations such that the combinations with indexes of a target dimension discontinuous with each other are not included in the same group according to predetermined order with respect to the indexes of the target dimension”, “performing, on the basis of the generated third data, the MTTKRP processing by setting the plurality of groups as targets of the parallel processing in the MTTKRP processing related to the tensor data for the target dimension, performing an operation on each combination of a plurality of combinations included in the group in the predetermined order”, and “reflecting contents of the temporary area of the group to a solution matrix every time an operation on one or more combinations that have the same indexes of the target dimension included in the group is completed”.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “storing a result of the operation in a temporary area of the group”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the storing is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Additionally, storing information to memory is recognized as well-understood routine and conventional by the courts. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II iv (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP AM., Inc.).
Regarding claim 6, under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “the predetermined order is ascending order or descending order of the indexes of the target dimension”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the predetermined order is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use is recited at a high level of generality and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, it is directed to the mathematical concept and/or mental process of “the MTTKRP processing is performed”.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “the combination is stored in an array of structure format”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the storing is an insignificant extra-solution activity, is generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is directed to an information processing method that implements the same or similar features as the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, the computer recited in claim 8 is recited at a high level of generality and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is directed to an information processing apparatus that implements the same or similar features as the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/P.N.L./
Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights