DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/794,007 filed on 7/20/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner. 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 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.
Drawings
Figures 1-6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “learning unit” in Claim 15.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, it recites an information processing method “for setting a weight matrix generated by learning using a target matrix” and “the weight matrix being multiplied by the target matrix”. However, these recitations in the preamble to the claim raise a question as to their limiting effect on the claim, which renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose or intended use of a process, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In this case, the claimed method steps themselves describe a complete invention for setting a weight matrix, such that deletion of the preamble phrases in question do not affect the steps of the claimed invention. For example, “learning using a target matrix” and “the weight matrix being multiplied by the target matrix” are not claimed as active method steps in the body of the claim, nor is “learning” or “multiplying” performed as part of the actively claimed method steps. Thus, removal of the preamble phrases in question would have no effect on the complete method which consists of an “extracting” step and a “setting” step. Thus, it appears the preamble phrases in question do not impose a limit on the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.02.
The Examiner notes that the preamble recitation of “a target matrix that is a matrix including an action status on an item in each of a plurality of setting statuses as an element of a column” is limiting, however, because the “target matrix” and “elements of the column” are referred to in the body of the claim. Therefore, such a preamble recitation provides a distinct definition of the claimed invention’s limitation(s) (see MPEP § 2111.02).
As per dependent Claims 2-8, they are rejected for the reasons presented above, due to their dependency upon independent Claim 1.
As per independent Claims 9 and 16, they are similarly rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1. Each similarly recites setting “a weight matrix generated by learning using a target matrix” and “the weight matrix being multiplied by the target matrix” in their respective preambles, without referring to “learning” or “multiplication” in the body of the claim. Thus, such preamble recitations raise a question as to their limiting effect on the claim(s), which renders the claim(s) unclear and indefinite.
As per dependent Claims 10-15, they are rejected for the reasons presented above, due to their dependency upon independent Claim 9.
As per Claims 7 and 15, they recite “the weight matrix becomes almost identical to the target matrix.” However, the term “almost” in the phrase “almost identical” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “almost identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
As per Claim 1, it recites a method for setting a weight matrix comprising extracting elements from column(s) of a target matrix, calculating a degree of similarity between the columns based on the extracted elements, and setting the weight matrix as a sparse matrix including a nonzero element based on the calculated degree of similarity.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (see MPEP § 2106), the claim recites a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract ideas of (1) mathematical concepts and (2) performance of the claim’s limitations in the mind. For instance, “extracting” elements from a matrix may comprise the mental act of decision making, i.e. choosing which elements to select. Calculating a degree of similarity is explicitly a mathematical calculation such as cosine similarity or distance, see e.g. Paragraph 0006 of the instant specification. Finally, “setting” a sparse weight matrix comprises setting elements of a matrix as either zero or one based on a similarity value calculated for any particular element. This, too, may be directed to the mental act of decision making and may be performed in the mind, or with pen and paper. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites the target matrix “is a matrix including an action status on an item in each of a plurality of setting statuses as an element of a column”. However, this limitation merely describes what matrix (or mathematical) data represents, without making the claim any less abstract or altering/adding to the performance of the claimed mathematical calculations or mental steps. Thus, it fails to impose a meaningful limit on the remaining method steps and therefore only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(h), “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information [and] analyzing it…to data related to the electric power grid…is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”).
The Examiner further notes that the claim does not recite a computer implementation, any hardware or software component, or any additional limitation that would make the claim any less abstract. Therefore, since the entire claimed method can be performed mentally and/or mathematically without a computer, and any additional elements do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, the claim is not integrated into a practical application and is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claiming abstract steps using data that represent particular types of values amounts to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use, which fails to provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and 2106.05(h), “Limiting the use of the formula…to determining the circumference of a wheel” and “Limiting the abstract idea…to data related to the electric power grid.” Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claims 2-8, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to make the claims patent eligible.
Specifically, the claims recite further mental steps or mathematical calculations, or further describe what the abstract matrix values represent, without reciting any additional elements that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, Claims 2-8 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claim 9, it similarly recites setting a weight matrix comprising extracting elements from column(s) of a target matrix, calculating a degree of similarity between the columns based on the extracted elements, and setting the weight matrix as a sparse matrix including a nonzero element based on the calculated degree of similarity.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance, such limitations cover the abstract ideas of (1) mathematical concepts and (2) performance of the claim’s limitations in the mind, as described above with reference to Claim 1. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites an information processing system comprising at least one memory to store instructions and at least one processor to execute the instructions to perform the recited “extracting”, “calculating”, and “setting” steps described above. However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer function(s) such as mathematical computations and data processing. Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claim additionally recites the target matrix “is a matrix including an action status on an item in each of a plurality of setting statuses as an element of a column”. However, this limitation merely describes what matrix (or mathematical) data represents, without making the claim any less abstract or altering/adding to the performance of the claimed mathematical calculations or mental steps. Thus, it fails to impose a meaningful limit on the remaining method steps and therefore only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(h), “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information [and] analyzing it…to data related to the electric power grid…is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements described above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a generic computer to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Moreover, claiming abstract steps using data that represent particular types of values amounts to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use, which fails to provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and 2106.05(h), “Limiting the use of the formula…to determining the circumference of a wheel” and “Limiting the abstract idea…to data related to the electric power grid.” Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claims 10-15, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 9, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to make the claims patent eligible.
Specifically, the claims recite further mental steps or mathematical calculations, or further describe what the abstract matrix values represent, without reciting any additional elements that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, Claims 10-15 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claim 16, it similarly recites setting a weight matrix comprising extracting elements from column(s) of a target matrix, calculating a degree of similarity between the columns based on the extracted elements, and setting the weight matrix as a sparse matrix including a nonzero element based on the calculated degree of similarity.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance, such limitations cover the abstract ideas of (1) mathematical concepts and (2) performance of the claim’s limitations in the mind, as described above with reference to Claim 1. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for causing an information processing apparatus to execute the recited “extracting”, “calculating”, and “setting” steps described above. However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer function(s) such as mathematical computations and data processing. Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claim additionally recites the target matrix “is a matrix including an action status on an item in each of a plurality of setting statuses as an element of a column”. However, this limitation merely describes what matrix (or mathematical) data represents, without making the claim any less abstract or altering/adding to the performance of the claimed mathematical calculations or mental steps. Thus, it fails to impose a meaningful limit on the remaining method steps and therefore only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(h), “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information [and] analyzing it…to data related to the electric power grid…is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements described above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a generic computer to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Moreover, claiming abstract steps using data that represent particular types of values amounts to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use, which fails to provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and 2106.05(h), “Limiting the use of the formula…to determining the circumference of a wheel” and “Limiting the abstract idea…to data related to the electric power grid.” Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ning et al., “Sparse Linear Methods with Side Information for Top-N Recommendations” – discloses an extension to the sparse linear method (SLIM) for top-N recommender systems, which is discussed heavily in the Background section of the instant specification, and on which the instant invention is based. The paper teaches incorporating additional information associated with items (i.e. side information) into the SLIM for top-N recommendation.
Cheng et al., “LorSLIM: Low Rank Sparse Linear Methods for Top-N Recommendations” – discloses modifying the SLIM for Top-N recommender systems to capture potential dependencies between items that have not been co-rated by at least one user, by learning a sparse and low-rank coefficient matrix (i.e. weight matrix) W.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW SANDIFER whose telephone number is (571)270-5175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30am-6pm.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/MATTHEW D SANDIFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151