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 Arguments
Specification Objections
Applicant has amended the specification at issue and the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn.
Claim objections
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the “generating, on the basis of the acquired first data…” being characterized as a mental process is oversimplified (pg. 8) and is flawed because it is only used to illustrate the principal of the grouping method and is not the scope of real-world use (pg. 11), because “while the example in the specification involves a small, three-dimensional tensor with eight non-zero values… the claimed invention is explicitly designed to handle “multidimensional tensor data””. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertions are inconsistent with the claims. The claim language does not limit the invention to only process amounts of data to the degree it cannot be reasonably performed in the human mind. While the scope of real-world tensor data may comprise “orders of magnitude more dimensions and non-zero elements”, the scope of real-world data also comprises the example presented in Applicant’s Figs. 5-17. Thus, the scope of the claims includes mental processes, and is therefore considered a mental process.
Applicant asserts the claimed invention provides technical solution to the problem of enabling efficient and accurate parallel processing of MTTKRP calculations and the generating step is crucial to the improvement (pg. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement is a consequence of the “generating, on the basis of the acquired first data, second data…” in the claims, which remains considered as a mental step as discussed above, in combination with “performing, based on the generated second data…”, which is a mathematical process. However, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant asserts the various steps of data acquisition and structing are not isolated generic steps, but specific implementations contributing to the overall technical solution (pg. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data acquisition as claimed merely recites the data acquired is a “combination of a value of the element and an index of each dimension that indicates a position of the element”, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is necessary data gathering to perform the functions of the claimed invention and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim as a whole, because the generating of second data and performing MTTKRP processing requires data that is a combination of the indexes of the position of the element and the value of the element. Similarly, the “the first data is acquired by generating the first data based on the tensor data” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim as a whole because the MTTKRP processing is computing on tensor data. The limitations of “arranging a one-dimensional array” and “a pointer” are understood as specifying the type of data to be manipulated, or computed on. Lastly, the “storing a result of the operation in a temporary area” is mere data storage that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim as a whole as it is performed “every time an operation… in the group is completed.” Therefore, the additional elements are pre-solution and post-solution activities to performing the judicial exception and do not provide meaningly limits on the claims as a whole.
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 a computer to execute processing comprising: acquiring 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;
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 performing, on the basis of the generated second data, matricized tensor times khatri-rao product (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 process, 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 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).
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 “acquiring first data”, or data gathering, is recognized by the courts as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 “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 a non-transitory computer-readable medium 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
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 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