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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims filed on 03/11/2022.
Claims 16-35 are presented for examination.
Priority
The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: the instant application, filed 03/11/2022 claims priority from foreign application GR20190100406, filed 09/20/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 03/11/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
In the instant case, the claims are directed to a system (claims 16-21), method (claims 22-34) and non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 35). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A analysis:
Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically the abstract idea of “Mental Processes/Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and mathematical concept.
The claim 16 recites.
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
- “initialize the ordered plurality of inducing inputs;” This is a mental process, the human mind can set the initial value or order of the inducing input , (Observation/Evaluation).
- “initialize the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution” this is a mental process, the human mind can set the initial value of the parameter of the multivariate Gaussian distribution, (observation/Evaluation).
“and predict, the state of the physical system at a further time.” This is a mental process, the human mind can predict the state of the physical system, such as can tell what happen to the system at the future time based on the current status of the physical system, (Observation/Evaluation).
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ a data interface configured to receive data representing observations of a state of a physical system at a plurality of times;” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more (than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
-“ a memory configured to store: the data” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data storing. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data storing to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more (than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
-“and parameters of a multivariate Gaussian distribution over a set of inducing states, each inducing state having components corresponding to a Markovian Gaussian process (GP) and one or more derivatives of the Markovian GP at a respective inducing time of a plurality of inducing times, wherein the parameters comprise a mean vector and a lower block-banded Cholesky factor of a precision matrix for the multivariate Gaussian distribution”, “ using the modified parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution,”, “the objective function being a function of the lower block-banded Cholesky factor of the precision matrix” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
-“and one or more processors configured to:”, “ iteratively modify the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase an objective function corresponding to a variational lower bound of a marginal log-likelihood of the observations under the Markovian GP” These additional limitations are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ a data interface configured to receive data representing observations of a state of a physical system at a plurality of times;” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory")
-“ a memory configured to store: the data” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data storing. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data storing to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory")
-“and parameters of a multivariate Gaussian distribution over a set of inducing states, each inducing state having components corresponding to a Markovian Gaussian process (GP) and one or more derivatives of the Markovian GP at a respective inducing time of a plurality of inducing times, wherein the parameters comprise a mean vector and a lower block-banded Cholesky factor of a precision matrix for the multivariate Gaussian distribution”, “ using the modified parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution,”, “the objective function being a function of the lower block-banded Cholesky factor of the precision matrix” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
-“and one or more processors configured to:”, “ iteratively modify the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase an objective function corresponding to a variational lower bound of a marginal log-likelihood of the observations under the Markovian GP” These additional limitations are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 17 recites.
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the further time is later than any of the plurality of times.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the further time is later than any of the plurality of times.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 18 recites.
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“determining hyperparameters for the Markovian GP;” this is a mental process, the human mind can determinate the hyperparameter for the particular function (Markovian GP), (observation/Evaluation).
-“ and deriving one or more physical properties of the physical system from the determined hyperparameters for the Markovian GP.” This is a mental process, the human mind can deriving one or more physical properties from the determined hyperparameter, for example, the human can derive each portion of the manufacture system, associates with the determined hyperparameter values, (observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 19 recites.
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“wherein the operations comprise initializing the inducing inputs sequentially and concurrently with the receiving of the data.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“wherein the operations comprise initializing the inducing inputs sequentially and concurrently with the receiving of the data.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 20 recites.
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ initializing the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution comprises allocating a first region of the memory to store a dense matrix comprising in-band elements of the lower block-banded Cholesky factor of the precision matrix.” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data storing. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data storing to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more (than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ initializing the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution comprises allocating a first region of the memory to store a dense matrix comprising in-band elements of the lower block-banded Cholesky factor of the precision matrix.” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data storing. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data storing to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim 21 recites.
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the number of inducing inputs is less than the number of observations in the plurality of observations.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the number of inducing inputs is less than the number of observations in the plurality of observations.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claims 22 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 16, since these claims recite the same limitation.
The claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 20, since these claims recite the same limitation.
The claim 24 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ iteratively modifying the inducing inputs to increase or decrease the objective function.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ iteratively modifying the inducing inputs to increase or decrease the objective function.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 25 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ receiving a data stream comprising the plurality of observations;” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more (than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
-“ and initializing the inducing inputs sequentially and concurrently with the receiving of the data stream.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ receiving a data stream comprising the plurality of observations;” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
-“ and initializing the inducing inputs sequentially and concurrently with the receiving of the data stream.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 26 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ initializing first inducing inputs within the first interval;” this is a mental process, the human mind can set the initial value of the input at the first time, (observation/Evaluation).
“Initializing first parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution corresponding to first inducing states associated with the first inducing inputs;” this is a mental process, the human mind can set the initial values of the first parameter based on the initial state of the input, (observation/Evalution).
initializing second parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution corresponding to second inducing states associated with the second inducing inputs; this is a mental process, the human mind can set the initial value of the parameter based on the second state of the second input, (observation/Evaluation).
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein first input values associated with first observations of the plurality of observations lie within a first interval, and second input values associated with second observations of the plurality of observations lie within a second interval different from the first interval,”, “and iteratively modifying the second parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase or decrease an objective function for the second interval.” -“iteratively modifying the first parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase or decrease an objective function for the first interval;”, “ initializing second parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution corresponding to second inducing states associated with the second inducing inputs; and iteratively modifying the second parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase or decrease an objective function for the second interval.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
-“ receiving the first observations;”, “receiving the second observations;” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more (than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
--“iteratively modifying the first parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase or decrease an objective function for the first interval;”, “ initializing second parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution corresponding to second inducing states associated with the second inducing inputs; and iteratively modifying the second parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase or decrease an objective function for the second interval.”,“ wherein first input values associated with first observations of the plurality of observations lie within a first interval, and second input values associated with second observations of the plurality of observations lie within a second interval different from the first interval,”, “and iteratively modifying the second parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase or decrease an objective function for the second interval.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
-“ receiving the first observations;”, “receiving the second observations;” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim 27 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 21, since these claims recite the same limitation.
The claim 28 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“wherein iteratively modifying the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution comprises performing a natural gradient update.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“wherein iteratively modifying the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution comprises performing a natural gradient update.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 29 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the data is time-series data and the ordered input values correspond to times.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the data is time-series data and the ordered input values correspond to times..” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 30 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein each of the observations corresponds to a sample from an audio file.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein each of the observations corresponds to a sample from an audio file.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 31 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein each of the observations corresponds to a neural activation measurement.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein each of the observations corresponds to a neural activation measurement.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 32 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein each of the observations corresponds to a measurement of a radio frequency signal.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein each of the observations corresponds to a measurement of a radio frequency signal.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 33 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the Markovian GP is a component GP in a composite GP comprising a plurality of further component GPs.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the Markovian GP is a component GP in a composite GP comprising a plurality of further component GPs.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 34 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ The computer-implemented method of claim 31, wherein the composite GP is an additive GP and each of the component GPs of the composite GP represents a source underlying the plurality of observations,” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
-“ the method comprising training the Markovian GP and the plurality of further GPs to determine a distribution of each of the sources underlying the plurality of observations.” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ The computer-implemented method of claim 31, wherein the composite GP is an additive GP and each of the component GPs of the composite GP represents a source underlying the plurality of observations,” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
-“ the method comprising training the Markovian GP and the plurality of further GPs to determine a distribution of each of the sources underlying the plurality of observations.” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 35 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 16, since these claims recite the same limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al. , (PUB: No. US20140156180-hereinafter, Marti) and further in view of Titsias et al. (NPL: Variational Learning of Inducing Variables in Sparse Gaussian Processes-hereinafter, Titsias) and further in view of Durrande, et al. (NPL: Banded Matrix Operators for Gaussian Markov Models in the Automatic Differentiation Era, hereinafter, Durrande).
Regarding claim 16, Marti teaches a system comprising: a data interface configured to receive data representing observations of a state of a physical system at a plurality of times (Marti, [Par. 0004], “In one aspect, a method for determining a location of a mobile device in a venue is provided. The venue includes a space accessible by a movable body carrying the mobile device and one or more constraints of movement of the movable body. A state space estimator determines candidate locations of the mobile device at a first time point based on candidate positions determined at a previous time point conditioned upon an observation of one or more environmental variables provided at the first time point. A second observation of the one or more environment variables is received at a second time point, and the state space estimator performs a propagation step to determine the candidate locations of the mobile device at the second time point based on the candidate locations at the first time point and the second observation of the one or more environmental variable”));
a memory configured to store: the data (Marti, [Par.00006], “In one aspect, a mobile device includes a storage configured to store map data associated with a venue comprising a space accessible by a movable body and one or more constraints of movement of the movable body; and a processor configured to implement a state space estimator to determine candidate locations of the mobile device at a first time point based on candidate positions determined at a previous time point conditioned upon an observation of one or more environmental variables provided at the first time point.”);
and predict, using the modified parameters, the state of the physical system at the further time (Marti, [Par.0004], “In one aspect, a method for determining a location of a mobile device in a venue is provided. The venue includes a space accessible by a movable body carrying the mobile device and one or more constraints of movement of the movable body. A state space estimator determines candidate locations of the mobile device at a first time point based on candidate positions determined at a previous time point conditioned upon an observation of one or more environmental variables provided at the first time point. A second observation of the one or more environment variables is received at a second time point, and the state space estimator performs a propagation step to determine the candidate locations of the mobile device at the second time point based on the candidate locations at the first time point and the second observation of the one or more environmental variables” Examiner’s note, the determining the location of the mobile device based on the second observation at the second time t (further time).).
However, Marti does not teach and parameters of a multivariate Gaussian distribution over a set of inducing states, each inducing state having components corresponding to a Markovian Gaussian process (GP) and one or more derivatives of the Markovian GP at a respective inducing time of a plurality of inducing times, wherein the parameters comprise a mean vector
and a lower block-banded Cholesky factor of a precision matrix for the multivariate Gaussian distribution and one or more processors configured to: initialize the ordered plurality of inducing inputs, initialize the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution iteratively modify the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution to increase an objective function corresponding to a variational lower bound of a marginal log-likelihood of the observations under the Markovian GP, the objective function being a function of the lower block-banded Cholesky factor of the precision matrix, The modified parameter of the multivariate Gaussian distribution
On the other hand, Titsias teaches and parameters of a multivariate Gaussian distribution over a set of inducing states (Titsias, section 1 p.567 "In this paper we introduce a variational method that jointly selects the inducing inputs and the hyperpaprameters by maximizing a lower bound to the exact marginal likelihood. The important difference between this formulation and previous methods is that here the inducing inputs are defined to be variational parameters which are selected by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between a variational GP and the true posterior GP. This allows i) to avoid overfitting and ii) to rigorously approximate the exact GP model by minimizing a distance between the sparse model and the exact one. The selection of the inducing inputs and hyperparameters is achieved either by applying continuous optimization over all unknown quantities or by using a variational EM algorithm where at the E step we greedily select the inducing inputs from the training data and at the M step we update the hyperparameters.") ,
wherein the parameters comprise a mean vector (Titsias, [Sec. 2, pages 568], “
PNG
media_image1.png
631
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“
and one or more processors configured to: initialize the ordered plurality of inducing inputs (Titsias, [Sec. 1, pages 568], “Our method is most closely related to the variational sparse GP method described in (Csato and Opper, 2002; Seeger, 2003) that is applied to GP classification (Seeger, 2003). The main difference between our formulation and these techniques is that we maximize a variational lower bound in order to select the inducing inputs, while these methods use variational bounds for estimating only the kernel hyperparameters.”);
initialize the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution (Titsias, section 1 p.567 "In this paper we introduce a variational method that jointly selects the inducing inputs and the hyperpaprameters by maximizing a lower bound to the exact marginal likelihood. The important difference between this formulation and previous methods is that here the inducing inputs are defined to be variational parameters which are selected by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between a variational GP and the true posterior GP. This allows i) to avoid overfitting and ii) to rigorously approximate the exact GP model by minimizing a distance between the sparse model and the exact one. The selection of the inducing inputs and hyperparameters is achieved either by applying continuous optimization over all unknown quantities or by using a variational EM algorithm where at the E step we greedily select the inducing inputs from the training data and at the M step we update the hyperparameters." Examiner’s note, the hyperparameter is updated at the M step that corresponds to the initialize the parameters) ;
iteratively modify the parameters of the multivariate Gaussian distribution (Titsias, Sec.3], “
PNG
media_image2.png
752
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“
to increase an objective function corresponding to a variational lower bound of a marginal log-likelihood of the observations under the Markovian GP (Titsias, section 1 p.567 "In this paper we introduce a variational method that jointly selects the inducing inputs and the hyperpaprameters by maximizing a lower bound to the exact marginal likelihood. The important difference between this formulation and previous methods is that here the inducing inputs are defined to be variational parameters which are selected by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between a variational GP and the true posterior GP.”),
The modified parameter of the multivariate Gaussian distribution (Titsias, section 1 p.567 "In this paper we introduce a variational method that jointly selects the inducing inputs and the hyperparameters by maximizing a lower bound to the exact marginal likelihood. The important difference between this formulation and previous methods is that here the inducing inputs are defined to be variational parameters which are selected by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between a variational GP and the true posterior GP.”), and [Titsias, Sec.3], “
PNG
media_image2.png
752
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”).
Marti and Titsias are analogous in arts because they have the same field of endeavor of training data by using the machine learning model.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the a data interface configured to receive data representing observations of a state of a physical system at a plurality of times, as taught by Marti, to include the and parameters of a multivariate Gaussian distribution over a set of inducing states, wherein the parameters comprise a mean vector and one or more processors configured to: initialize the ordered plurality of inducing inputs, initialize the pa