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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-3, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Apparatus claims 1 and 8 will be addressed first, followed by apparatus claims 2 and 9, followed by apparatus claims 3 and 10.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1 analysis, the claim falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter: an apparatus.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, the claim recites Mathematical Concepts. The claim recites Mathematical Calculations, which is specifically identified as an exemplar in the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas:
“
w
∈
R
n
is a variable being an optimization target, and
G
(
w
)
(
=
G
1
(
w
)
+
G
2
(
w
)
)
is a cost function for optimizing the variable
w
, calculated by using input data (note that a function
G
i
(
w
)
:
R
n
→
R
∪
{
∞
}
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
is a closed proper convex function), and
D
:
R
n
→
R
is a strictly convex function (note that the function D is differentiable, and satisfies
∇
D
(
0
)
=
0
), and
R
i
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
and
C
i
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
are a D-resolvent operator and a D-Cayley operator defined by following expressions, respectively, [Math. 63]
R
i
=
I
+
(
∇
D
-
1
∘
∂
G
i
)
-
1
C
i
=
I
+
∇
D
-
1
∘
∂
G
i
-
1
∘
I
-
∇
D
-
1
∘
∂
G
i
x
recursively determining a value of the variable w by using the D-resolvent operator
R
i
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
and the D-Cayley operator
C
i
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
,
wherein
x
-
G
i
(
w
)
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
is a strongly convex function approximating the function
G
i
(
w
)
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
, and
wherein the calculating
∇
D
(
w
)
, for a D-resolvent operator
R
1
and a D-Cayley operator
C
1
,
T
1
(
w
)
=
∇
-
G
1
(
w
)
-
∇
-
G
1
(
0
)
is used for calculation of
∇
D
(
w
)
, and for a D-resolvent operator
R
2
and a D-Cayley operator
C
2
, uses
T
2
w
=
∇
-
G
2
w
-
∇
-
G
2
0
.
”
See specification ([0003], [0023], [0127]) describing
w
,
G
w
,
and
G
i
(
w
)
. See specification ([0023-0025], [0035-0037], [0042-0045], [0086-0089], [0091-0094], [0129-0131], [0134], [0161-0165]) describing
D
,
R
i
,
and
C
i
. See specification ([0025], [0048-0050], [0131-0132], [0159]) describing recursively determining. See specification ([0025], [0091-0096], [0130], [0134-0135]) describing
x
-
G
i
(
w
)
. See specification ([0025], [0086-0096], [0131], [0134-0135], [0161-0165], [0194-0198]) describing
∇
D
(
w
)
,
T
1
w
,
and
T
2
(
w
)
. For these reasons, the claim recites Mathematical Concepts.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the claim recites the combination of the following additional elements: a processor and a memory storing instructions configured to execute a method. A processor and a memory storing instructions configured to execute a method are recited at a high level of generality, and are examples of generic computing elements, and/or merely generally linked to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi): Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). Taken alone or in combination, they fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B Analysis, the additional elements recited above, taken alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis, the claim recites a processor and a memory storing instructions configured to execute a method at a high level of generality, which merely result in “apply it” on a computer, and/or merely generally linking to a particular technologic environment. Since the claim does not include additional elements that, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claim 1 is ineligible.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, claim 8 recites Mathematical Concepts. The claim recites Mathematical Calculations, which is specifically identified as an exemplar in the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas:
“generating an output image without noise,
based on the recursively determining the value of the variable w upon pixels of an input image
.
”
See specification ([0113-0125], [0187-0190], [0192-0198], [0217-0219]) describing generating an output image. See specification ([0113-0125], [0187-0190], [0192-0198], [0217-0219]) describing recursively determining the value of w. For these reasons, the claim recites Mathematical Concepts.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the claim recites the combination of the following additional elements: for noise elimination. Noise elimination is recited at a high level of generality, and is an example of merely generally linked to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi): Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). Taken alone or in combination, they fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B Analysis, the additional elements recited above, taken alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis, the claim recites noise elimination at a high level of generality, which merely result in “apply it” on a computer, and/or merely generally linking to a particular technologic environment. Since the claim does not include additional elements that, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claim 8 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2, under the Alice Framework Step 1 analysis, the claim falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter: an apparatus.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, the claim recites Mathematical Concepts. The claim recites Mathematical Calculations, which is specifically identified as an exemplar in the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas:
“
w
∈
R
n
is a variable being an optimization target, and
G
(
w
)
(
=
G
1
(
w
)
+
G
2
(
w
)
)
is a cost function for optimizing the variable
w
, calculated by using input data (note that a function
G
i
(
w
)
:
R
n
→
R
∪
{
∞
}
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
is a closed proper convex function),
calculating
w
t
+
1
being (t+1)-th update result of the variable w, wherein x, y, and
z
∈
R
n
are each an auxiliary variable of the variable
w
,
D
:
R
n
→
R
is a strictly convex function (note that the function D is differentiable, and satisfies
∇
D
(
0
)
=
0
),
J
D
is Bregman divergence defined by using the function D,
x
-
G
i
(
w
)
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
is a strongly convex function approximating the function
G
i
(
w
)
(
i
=
1
,
2
)
, and
T
1
(
w
)
and
T
2
(
w
)
are functions defined by following expressions, respectively, [Math. 64]
T
1
w
=
∇
G
1
-
w
-
∇
G
2
-
(
0
)
T
2
w
=
∇
G
1
-
w
-
∇
G
2
-
(
0
)
;
calculating
γ
1
t
+
1
being (t+1)-th update result of a first coefficient
γ
1
by using a following expression,
[Math. 65]
γ
1
t
+
1
=
γ
2
t
T
2
∘
∂
G
1
+
∂
G
2
z
t
2
/
T
1
∘
∂
G
1
+
∂
G
2
z
t
2
calculating
w
t
+
1
being (t+1)-th update result of the variable w by using a following expression,
[Math. 66]
w
t
+
1
=
arg
min
w
(
G
1
w
+
J
D
(
w
|
|
z
t
)
)
;
x
calculating
x
t
+
1
being (t+1)-th update result of the auxiliary variable x by using a following expression,
[Math. 67]
x
t
+
1
=
2
w
t
+
1
-
z
t
;
calculating
γ
2
t
+
1
being (t+1)-th update result of a second coefficient
γ
2
by using a following expression,
[Math. 68]
γ
2
t
+
1
=
γ
1
t
+
1
T
1
∘
∂
G
1
+
∂
G
2
x
t
+
1
2
/
T
2
∘
∂
G
1
+
∂
G
2
x
t
+
1
2
;
calculating
y
t
+
1
being (t+1)-th update result of the auxiliary variable y by using a following expression,
[Math. 69]
y
t
+
1
=
arg
min
y
G
2
y
+
J
D
y
|
|
x
t
+
1
;
and
calculating
z
t
+
1
being (t+1)-th update result of the auxiliary variable z by using a following expression,
[Math. 70]
z
t
+
1
=
2
y
t
+
1
-
x
t
+
1
”.
See specification ([0003], [0023], [0127]) describing
w
,
G
w
,
and
G
i
(
w
)
. See specification ([0050-0053], [0086-0089], [0091-0094], [0129-0131], [0134-0137], [0161-0165]) describing