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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on 9/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-15 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, 3-15 are pending in the application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Top k Grouped Class Loss for Neural Network Classification and Training”.
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 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites “A learning apparatus comprising:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
classify input data into a plurality of classes by using a predictive model of a neural network and output a predicted probability for each class: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship of organizing and manipulating input data into a plurality of classes by using a predictive model of a neural network via mathematical correlating a predicted probability for each class variable similar to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv).
generate a grouped class formed by k classes within top k predicted probabilities based on the predicted probability for each class: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship of organizing and manipulating to generate a grouped class formed by k classes within top k predicted probabilities based on mathematically correlating the predicted probability for each class similar to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv).
and calculate a predicted probability of the grouped class representing a probability that a correct answer is included in the k classes forming the grouped class; calculate a loss based on predicted probabilities of the plurality of classes including the grouped class: These limitations recite mathematical calculations of calculating a predicted probability of the grouped class and calculating a loss based on predicted probabilities of the plurality of classes including the grouped class. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
update the predictive model of the neural network based on the calculated loss: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship organizing and manipulating the predictive model of the neural network based on mathematically correlating the calculated loss similar to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
A learning apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity, e.g. memory storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions, to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
sort predicted probabilities corresponding to respective classes, which are output when classifying the input data, and determines the k classes: These limitations recite mathematical relationships of organizing and manipulating information by outputting when classifying the input data by mathematically correlating by sorting predicted probabilities corresponding to respective classes to determine the k classes similar to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception
do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
generate a transformed prediction result in which the predicted probabilities of the k classes forming the grouped class are replaced with the predicted probability of the grouped class, and transformed target data in which values of target data for the k classes forming the grouped class are replaced with a value of the target data for the grouped class, when generating the grouped class: These limitations recite mathematical relationships requiring a transformed prediction result in which the predicted probabilities of the k classes forming the grouped class are replaced with the predicted probability of the grouped class and transformed target data in which values of target data for the k classes forming the grouped class are replaced with a value of the target data for the grouped class, when generating the grouped class. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
calculate the loss based on the transformed prediction result and the transformed target data: These limitations recite mathematical calculations for the loss based on the transformed prediction result and the transformed target data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to…and the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
set a sum of the predicted probabilities of the k classes forming the grouped class to the predicted probability of the grouped class, and sets a sum of values of the target data included in the k classes forming the grouped class to a value of the target data of the grouped class: These limitation recite a mathematical formula/mathematical relationship of setting sums to predicted probability and a value. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A and B).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
generate transformed target data by transforming the target data by using predicted probabilities of the k classes forming the grouped class, when generating the grouped class: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship defined by transforming the target data by using predicted probabilities of the k classes forming the grouped class, when generating the grouped class to generate transformed target data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv) similar to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.
calculate the loss based on the prediction result output when classifying the input data and the transformed target data: These limitation recite mathematical calculations of the loss based on the prediction result output when classifying the input data and the transformed target data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to…and the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 6.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
set values obtained by allocating a sum of the values of the target data for the k classes forming the grouped class with the prediction probabilities of the k classes, to values of the target data respectively for the k classes: These limitation recite mathematical relationships/mathematical formula of setting values obtained by allocating a sum of the values of the target data for the k classes forming the grouped class with the prediction probabilities of the k classes, to values of the target data respectively for the k classes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A and B).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determine a value of k based on the output predicted probability of each class and a specific value: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship wherein the output predicted probability of each class and a specific value relates to a determined value of variable k. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
generate a plurality of pairs of transformed prediction results and transformed target data using a value of k: These limitations recite mathematical relationships requiring use of a value k to generate a plurality of pairs of transformed prediction results and transformed target data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
calculate a single loss based on the plurality of pairs of transformed prediction results and transformed target data: These limitations recite mathematical calculations for a single loss based on the plurality of pairs of transformed prediction results and transformed target data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to…and the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
set, as the loss, a value obtained by synthesizing the transformed prediction result and the transformed target data for each number of classes to be grouped: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship of setting a value representing the loss by synthesizing the transformed prediction result and the transformed target data for each number of classes to be grouped. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
compare losses calculated by using the transformed prediction result and the transformed target data for each number of classes to be grouped, and determines a greatest value as the loss: These limitations recite a mathematical calculation/mathematical relationship required in calculating losses of using the transformed prediction result and the transformed target data for each number of classes to be grouped and comparing the relationship between the losses to determine a greatest value as the loss. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C and A).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12
Step 1: a machine, as in claim 10.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
use a value in which the transformed prediction result is transformed, instead of the transformed prediction result, in a case of calculating the loss for each number of classes to be grouped, and uses a value in which the transformed target data are transformed, instead of the transformed target data: These limitations recite mathematical relationships of using a value in which the transformed prediction result is transformed, instead of the transformed prediction result, in a case of calculating the loss for each number of classes to be grouped, and using a value in which the transformed target data are transformed, instead of the transformed target data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13
Step 1: The claim recites “An information integration system, comprising:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
a learning apparatus according to claim 1: These limitations encompass all the abstract ideas analyzed in claim 1 corresponding to this step.
classify practical input data into a plurality of classes including the grouped class: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of classifying practical input data into a plurality of classes using evaluation/judgement including the observed grouped class.
classify the practical input data into one of k classes forming the grouped class by using additional information: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of classifying, using observed additional information, the practical input data into one of observed k classes forming the grouped class.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
A learning apparatus according to claim 1: These additional elements encompass all the additional elements analyzed in claim 1 corresponding to this step.
a primary classification apparatus configured to…and a secondary classification apparatus configured to classify: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represent generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
by using the predictive model of the neural network, trained by the learning apparatus: These additional elements are mere instructions to implement the judicial exception comprising the mentally performable classifying of practical input process because the additional elements only recite the idea of a solution or outcome but fails to recite details of how the predictive model of the neural network is trained by the learning apparatus, e.g. unsupervised/supervised/hybrid training etc., and there are no details regarding the architecture of the neural network used to accomplish the classifying. Thus, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to the claimed invention and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception and adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14
Step 1: The claim recites “A learning method comprising:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 recites the same abstract ideas comprising the judicial exception as claim 1. The analysis at this step mirror that of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does
not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such,
the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to perform a process comprising:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 recites the same abstract ideas comprising the judicial exception as claim 1. The analysis at this step mirror that of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to perform a process comprising: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity, e.g. a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to perform a process, to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, in analyzing the claim as a whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification of a new title for the invention filed 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A suggested title for consideration has been set forth in the Specification objections above.
Applicant’s claim amendments and Remarks filed 9/25/2025 traversing the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 3/26/2025 are persuasive and consequently the said rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s claim amendments and Remarks filed 9/25/2025 traversing the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 3/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that all of the pending claims in the application satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 at least because of the amendments to the claims and because they are similar to Example 39 of the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the amended claims that are pending are not patent eligible as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth above because the claim limitations recite extensive abstract ideas that comprise the judicial exception as detailed in Step 2A Prong 1, the additional elements above and beyond the judicial exception recited when analyzed, individually and in combination, and with the claim as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as detailed in Step 2A Prong, and the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, the pending claims of the application are not similar to Example 39 because Example 39 did not recite any abstract ideas to comprise a judicial exception, whereas the pending claims of the Instant Application do recite abstract ideas that comprise a judicial exception as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth above. Thus, the pending claims of the Instant Application are patent ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KUANG FU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30pm 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, Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571) 272-7212. 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.
/KC CHEN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143