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 .
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: data acquisition unit and coefficient update unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
As to claim 1’s data acquisition unit, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: data acquisition program and the processor as disclosed in [0027] of the applicant’s specification.
As to claim 1’s coefficient update unit, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: coefficient update program and the processor as disclosed in [0027] of the applicant’s specification.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "storage device". It is unclear whether the storage device data is being read out of is a: component of the processor, component of the regression analysis device, or external to the regression analysis device; as the storage device is not positively recited in the claim. For examination purposes, the storage device is interpreted as a component within the regression analysis device and external to the processor, based on applicant’s Fig. 5.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a regression analysis device, which is a statutory category of invention (Machine).
At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A regression analysis device comprising: a data acquisition unit configured to read out, from a storage device storing training data used as a target variable and an explanatory variable of a regression model and a constraint condition
defining in advance whether the explanatory variable should be varied positively or negatively to vary the target variable in a positive direction or a negative direction, the training data and the constraint condition (mathematical relationship);
and a coefficient update unit configured to
repeatedly update, using the training data, coefficients of the explanatory variable in the regression model to minimize a cost function including a regularization term that increases a cost in a case where the constraint condition is contravened (mathematical process).
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation read out… is merely receiving data. The limitation storing training data… is merely storing information in memory. The limitations data acquisition unit, storage device, and coefficient update unit are merely computer elements recited at a high level of generality to perform to perform their respective functions. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception As set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis, the functions of the reading data and storing data are recognized by the courts as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the data acquisition unit, storage device, and coefficient update unit are the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claims merely recite functions for updating coefficients that further mathematically limit the mathematical concepts, or provide additional mathematical functions, of claim 1. They do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claim 5, the claims are directed to a method that would be practiced by the regression analysis device of claim 1. All steps performed by claim 5 is executed by the apparatus in claim 1 as configured. Furthermore, claim 5 recharacterizes the regression analysis device of claim 1 as a computer and removes the additional elements corresponding with a processor. The changes emphasize that the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. The claims do not recite a particular organizational structure for the program and merely describes the operation of the program in terms of the judicial exception. The analysis of claim 1 applies equally to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium that would be practiced by the regression analysis device of claim 1. All steps performed by claim 6 is executed by the apparatus in claim 1 as configured. Furthermore, claim 6 recharacterizes the regression analysis device of claim 1 as a computer and removes the additional elements corresponding with a processor. The changes emphasize that the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. The claims do not recite a particular organizational structure for the program and merely describes the operation of the program in terms of the judicial exception. The analysis of claim 1 applies equally to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (US 20180314964 A1, hereinafter “Takano”, provided in IDS filed 05/06/2024) in view of Tibshirani (Regression Shrinkage and Selection Via the Lasso, hereinafter “Tibshirani”, provided in IDS filed 10/21/2022).
As per claim 1, Takano teaches A regression analysis device comprising:
a data acquisition unit (Takano: Fig. 1 elements 10, 20) configured to read out, from a storage device (Takano: Fig. 2 element 56) storing training data used as a target variable and an explanatory variable of a regression model (Takano: [0054]; record acquisition unit acquiring records shown in Table 1) and a constraint condition defining in advance whether the explanatory variable should be varied positively or negatively to vary the target variable in a positive direction or a negative direction, the training data and the constraint condition (Takano: [0013]; [0024]; [0053]);
and a coefficient update unit (Takano: Fig. 1 element 30) configured to repeatedly update, using the training data, coefficients of the explanatory variable in the regression model to minimize a cost function (Takano: [0057], maximizing likelihood estimation corresponds to minimizing cost)
However, while Takano discloses any maximum likelihood algorithm may be used ([0060]), and that the method may use a penalty term ([0009]), Takano does not explicitly disclose the regularization, or penalty term, minimizing a cost function. Thus, Takano does not teach including a regularization term that increases a cost in a case where the constraint condition is contravened.
Tibshirani teaches including a regularization term that increases a cost in a case where the constraint condition is contravened (Tibshirani: Section 2.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the estimation unit of Takano with the teachings of Tibshirani. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose optimizing regression models (Tibshirani: section 8 second paragraph), and Tabshirani’s teachings of absolute value constraints may be useful in statistical estimation problems (Tabshirani: pg. 286, last paragraph).
As per claim 2, Takano/Tibshirani further teaches The regression analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the regularization term increases the cost in accordance with a sum of absolute values of the coefficients in an interval where the coefficients are positive or negative depending on the constraint condition (Tibshirani: Section 2.1).
As per claim 3, Takano/Tibshirani further teaches The regression analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the coefficient update unit makes the coefficients zero in a case where the coefficients do not converge to a value satisfying the constraint condition (Takano: Table 3; [0063]-[0064]).
As per claim 5, the claim is directed to a method that implements the same or similar features as the device of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 6, the claim is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium that implements the same or similar features as the device of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano/Tibshirani in further view of Hunt et al. (US 20180336484 A1, hereinafter “Hunt”).
As per claim 4, Takano/Tibshirani further teaches The regression analysis device according to claim 1,
However, while Takano suggests any maximum likelihood algorithm may be used ([0060]), Takano does not explicitly list a proximal gradient method. Thus, Takano does not teach wherein the coefficient update unit updates the coefficients by a proximal gradient method.
Hunt teaches wherein the coefficient update unit updates the coefficients by a proximal gradient method (Hunt: [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the estimation unit of Takano with the proximal gradient method of Hunt. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose finding maximum likelihood, and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (method of performing maximum likelihood estimation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.N.L./
Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182