qpidsDETAILED 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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/25/2022 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 05/25/2022 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2022 and 03/29/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2, 11 and 17, line 7, limitation “the data segment is needed to for” should read “the data segment is needed for”.
In claims 2, 11 and 17, line 14, limitation “a impact threshold” should read “an impact threshold”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A computer-readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se, particularly when the specification is silent. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that the claims be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claims. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
The specification (page 22) defines a “memory to store instructions and data that are read during program execution. The memory 306 may be volatile or non-volatile and may comprise a read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), ternary content-addressable memory (TCAM), dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), and static random-access memory (SRAM), which are only examples of computer readable medium and is therefore non-limiting. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, there is a possibility that the computer readable medium can include a transitory signal, which is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “randomly segment the data into a plurality of data segments”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “segment the data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user dividing data into multiple portions.
Similarly, the limitation of “randomly combine the data segments into a plurality of data chromosomes” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “combine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user grouping the portions of data.
Similarly, the limitation of “determine an optimization metric for each data segment of the plurality of data chromosomes in the initial generation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a value of each portion.
Similarly, the limitation of “perform at least one iteration of the genetic algorithm” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “perform” in the context of this claim encompasses the user performing a method.
Similarly, the limitation of “selecting one or more data segments having the highest optimization metrics from data chromosomes of a previous generation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user choosing some portions based on their values.
Similarly, the limitation of “generating, based on the selected one or more data segments, a new set of data chromosomes” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using multiple portions to create a group/list of data.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining the optimization metric for each data segment of the data chromosomes from the next generation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a value of each portion of the group/list.
Similarly, the limitation of “detect that the genetic algorithm has converged” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detect” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining that the condition is met.
Similarly, the limitation of “determine a fitness score of each data segment from the initial generation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user assigning a score for each portion.
Similarly, the limitation of “delete from the database one or more data segments included in the initial generation based on the fitness scores of the data segments” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “delete” in the context of this claim encompasses the user removing portions of data based on their scores.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “a system”, “a database” and “at least one processor”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “wherein each data segment represents a data gene for a genetic algorithm, wherein the genetic algorithm simulates natural selection”, “wherein: each data chromosome includes a plurality of data segments; and the plurality of data chromosomes represents an initial generation for the genetic algorithm”, “wherein the optimization metric of a data segment indicates to what degree the data segment satisfies an optimization criteria”, “generating … using one or more of a cross-over operator and a mutation operator, wherein the new set of data chromosomes represents a next generation”, “wherein the next generation is the previous generation for the next iteration of the genetic algorithm” and “wherein the fitness score of the data segment is a number of iterations of the genetic algorithm the data segment was not eliminated” 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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, the additional elements of “a system”, “a database” and “at least one processor” to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “wherein each data segment represents a data gene for a genetic algorithm, wherein the genetic algorithm simulates natural selection”, “wherein: each data chromosome includes a plurality of data segments; and the plurality of data chromosomes represents an initial generation for the genetic algorithm”, “wherein the optimization metric of a data segment indicates to what degree the data segment satisfies an optimization criteria”, “generating … using one or more of a cross-over operator and a mutation operator, wherein the new set of data chromosomes represents a next generation”, “wherein the next generation is the previous generation for the next iteration of the genetic algorithm” and “wherein the fitness score of the data segment is a number of iterations of the genetic algorithm the data segment was not eliminated” 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “obtain the fitness score of the data segment”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtain” in the context of this claim encompasses the user collecting data.
Similarly, the limitation of “determine whether the fitness score of the data segment equals or is below a threshold fitness score” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user comparing the two set of data values.
Similarly, the limitation of “when the fitness score equals or is below the threshold fitness score” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “fitness score equals or is below” in the context of this claim encompasses the user comparing the two set of data values.
Similarly, the limitation of “determine whether the data segment is needed to for at least one processing step of at least one software application” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determine if a portion of data is needed to analyze based on score or important level.
Similarly, the limitation of “upon determining that the data segment is needed for the at least one processing step: determine a degree of impact associated with deleting the data segment” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining the important level of the data.
Similarly, the limitation of “delete the data segment when the degree of impact equals or is below a impact threshold” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “delete” in the context of this claim encompasses the user removing data based on comparing the two set of data values.
Similarly, the limitation of “delete the data segment upon determining that the data segment is not needed for any processing step of any software application” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “delete” in the context of this claim encompasses the user removing data when determine the data is not needed for further process based on score or important level.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
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, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “delete the data segment in response to receiving the approval”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “delete” in the context of this claim encompasses the user removing data based on a factor.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “in response to determining that the degree of impact equals or is below the impact threshold, request approval for deleting the data segment”, and “receive the approval for deleting the data segment” amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of data transmitting (sending a request signal) and gathering (receiving the approval), which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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, the additional elements of “in response to determining that the degree of impact equals or is below the impact threshold, request approval for deleting the data segment”, and “receive the approval for deleting the data segment” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting 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”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “response to determining the degree of impact exceeds the impact threshold, request increase in storage space for the database to continue storing the data segment” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data transmitting (sending a request signal), which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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, the additional element of “response to determining the degree of impact exceeds the impact threshold, request increase in storage space for the database to continue storing the data segment” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting 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”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “obtain the fitness score of the data segment”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtain” in the context of this claim encompasses the user collecting data.
Similarly, the limitation of “determine whether the fitness score of the data segment equals or is below a threshold fitness score” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user comparing the two set of data values.
Similarly, the limitation of “delete the data segment when the degree of impact equals or is below a impact threshold” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “delete” in the context of this claim encompasses the user removing data based on comparing the two set of data values.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
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, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “the optimization criteria comprises a plurality of parameters that indicate an importance of the data segments”. This limitation amounts 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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, the additional element of “the optimization criteria comprises a plurality of parameters that indicate an importance of the data segments” amounts 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “detect that a difference between data segments of two consecutive generations of the genetic algorithm equals or is below a threshold difference”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detect” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining if the change value is small.
Similarly, the limitation of “in response, determine that the genetic algorithm has converged” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining that the condition is met.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
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, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “generate the new set of data chromosomes”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user creating a new group/list of data.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “generate … using the cross-over operator by replacing one or more data segments from at least one data chromosome of the previous generation with the one or more selected data segments having the highest optimization metrics from data chromosomes of the previous generation”. This limitation amounts 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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, the additional element of “generate … using the cross-over operator by replacing one or more data segments from at least one data chromosome of the previous generation with the one or more selected data segments having the highest optimization metrics from data chromosomes of the previous generation” amounts 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “randomly selecting one or more data segments from the initial generation or the previous generation”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user choosing certain data to analyze.
Similarly, the limitation of “replacing one or more data segments from at least one data chromosome of the previous generation with the one or more randomly selected data segments”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “replacing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user changing data from the group/list using a certain method.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “generate the new set of data chromosomes using the mutation operation”. This limitation amounts 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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, the additional element of “generate the new set of data chromosomes using the mutation operation” amounts 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 10-15 recite a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 2 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 3 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 4 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 5 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 6 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a computer-readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “randomly segment the data into a plurality of data segments”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “segment the data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user dividing data into multiple portions.
Similarly, the limitation of “randomly combine the data segments into a plurality of data chromosomes” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “combine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user grouping the portions of data.
Similarly, the limitation of “determine an optimization metric for each data segment of the plurality of data chromosomes in the initial generation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a value of each portion.
Similarly, the limitation of “perform at least one iteration of the genetic algorithm” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “perform” in the context of this claim encompasses the user performing a method.
Similarly, the limitation of “selecting one or more data segments having the highest optimization metrics from data chromosomes of a previous generation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user choosing some portions based on their values.
Similarly, the limitation of “generating, based on the selected one or more data segments, a new set of data chromosomes” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using multiple portions to create a group/list of data.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining the optimization metric for each data segment of the data chromosomes from the next generation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a value of each portion of the group/list.
Similarly, the limitation of “detect that the genetic algorithm has converged” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detect” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining that the condition is met.
Similarly, the limitation of “determine a fitness score of each data segment from the initial generation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user assigning a score for each portion.
Similarly, the limitation of “delete from the database one or more data segments included in the initial generation based on the fitness scores of the data segments” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “delete” in the context of this claim encompasses the user removing portions of data based on their scores.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “a computer-readable medium” and “a processor”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “wherein each data segment represents a data gene for a genetic algorithm, wherein the genetic algorithm simulates natural selection”, “wherein: each data chromosome includes a plurality of data segments; and the plurality of data chromosomes represents an initial generation for the genetic algorithm”, “wherein the optimization metric of a data segment indicates to what degree the data segment satisfies an optimization criteria”, “generating … using one or more of a cross-over operator and a mutation operator, wherein the new set of data chromosomes represents a next generation”, “wherein the next generation is the previous generation for the next iteration of the genetic algorithm” and “wherein the fitness score of the data segment is a number of iterations of the genetic algorithm the data segment was not eliminated” 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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, the additional elements of “a computer-readable medium” and “a processor” to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “wherein each data segment represents a data gene for a genetic algorithm, wherein the genetic algorithm simulates natural selection”, “wherein: each data chromosome includes a plurality of data segments; and the plurality of data chromosomes represents an initial generation for the genetic algorithm”, “wherein the optimization metric of a data segment indicates to what degree the data segment satisfies an optimization criteria”, “generating … using one or more of a cross-over operator and a mutation operator, wherein the new set of data chromosomes represents a next generation”, “wherein the next generation is the previous generation for the next iteration of the genetic algorithm” and “wherein the fitness score of the data segment is a number of iterations of the genetic algorithm the data segment was not eliminated” 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, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 2 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 3 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 4 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 5 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu et al. (US Pub. 2017/0024497) in view of Wu et al. (US Pub. 2016/0171401) and further in view of Fang (US Patent 12,314,863).
As per claim 1, Lyu teaches a system comprising:
a database that stores data; and [paragraph 0024, storage]
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the database and configured to [paragraph 0024]:
randomly segment the data into a plurality of data segments, wherein each data segment represents a data gene for a genetic algorithm [paragraph 0026, “applying a genetic algorithm to search a desired subset of potential design variables and/or a desired set of values of the variables, the variables may be represented by a list of parameters used to drive an evaluation procedure of the genetic algorithm. The parameter list may be called a chromosome or a genome, which may represent an encoding of all variables … Chromosomes may also include genes, each of which may be an encoding of a value of an individual variable”];
randomly combine the data segments into a plurality of data chromosomes [paragraph 0026, “Chromosomes may also include genes, each of which may be an encoding of a value of an individual variable”], wherein:
the plurality of data chromosomes represents an initial generation for the genetic algorithm [paragraph 0027, “Initially, several such parameter lists or chromosomes and corresponding genes may be generated to create a generation”];
determine an optimization metric for each data segment of the plurality of data chromosomes in the initial generation, wherein the optimization metric of a data segment indicates to what degree the data segment satisfies an optimization criteria [paragraph 0027, “The generation may then be sorted, with those having better fitness ranked at the top as the fittest chromosomes and/or genes”. It can be seen that each gene has a fitness value, examiner interprets the fitness value as the optimization metric];
perform at least one iteration of the genetic algorithm [paragraphs 0026-0027, “applying a genetic algorithm … Initially … The chromosomes and/or genes in the generation may be evaluated based on a fitness function, and a value of fitness may be returned by the fitness function”] comprising:
selecting one or more data segments having the highest optimization metrics from data chromosomes of a previous generation [paragraph 0028, “A second generation may be generated from the sorted initial generation by using any or all of the genetic operators, such as selection, crossover (or reproduction), and mutation. During selection, chromosomes and/or genes in the generation with fitness values below a predetermined threshold may be deleted”; Since genes with fitness values below a predetermined threshold are deleted during selection, it can be seen that only genes having highest optimization metrics (fitness values) are selected];
generating, based on the selected one or more data segments, a new set of data chromosomes using one or more of a cross-over operator and a mutation operator, wherein the new set of data chromosomes represents a next generation [paragraphs 0028-0031, “A second generation may be generated from the sorted initial generation by using any or all of the genetic operators, such as selection, crossover (or reproduction), and mutation … After selection, reproduction operation may be performed upon the selected chromosomes and/or genes. Two selected chromosomes and/or genes may be crossed over along a randomly selected crossover point. Two new child chromosomes and/or genes may then be created and added to the generation … Selection, reproduction, and mutation may result in a second generation having chromosomes and/or genes that are different from the initial generation”]; and
determining the optimization metric for each data segment of the data chromosomes from the next generation, wherein the next generation is the previous generation for the next iteration of the genetic algorithm [paragraphs 0031-0032, “Selection, reproduction, and mutation may result in a second generation having chromosomes and/or genes that are different from the initial generation. The average degree of fitness may be increased by this procedure for the second generation, since better fitted chromosomes and/or genes from the first generation may be selected … Convergence may also be determined by the fitness function or if the value of a particular variable or variables reach a predetermined range”; It can be seen that the fitness values are calculated after the generation to determine if the genetic algorithm converges or another iteration is needed to be performed];
detect that the genetic algorithm has converged [paragraph 0032, “Convergence may be determined if the result of the genetic algorithm is improved during each generation and the rate of improvement falls below a predetermined rate. Convergence may also be determined by the fitness function or if the value of a particular variable or variables reach a predetermined range”];
Lyu does not explicitly teach
the genetic algorithm simulates natural selection;
each data chromosome includes a plurality of data segments;
determine a fitness score of each data segment from the initial generation, wherein the fitness score of the data segment is a number of iterations of the genetic algorithm the data segment was not eliminated; and
delete from the database one or more data segments included in the initial generation based on the fitness scores of the data segments.
Wu teaches
the genetic algorithm simulates natural selection [paragraph 0119, “GA is a method for solving optimization problems based on a natural selection process”];
determine a fitness score of each data segment from the initial generation, wherein the fitness score of the data segment is a number of iterations of the genetic algorithm the data segment was not eliminated [paragraphs 0037-0039, “genes can crossover with each other, mutate, or be removed from the population due to its unfitness to the nature. After several generations the best genes may survive from the selection of nature … In each iteration, a set of most fitting genes (i.e., with the highest fitness scores) are selected”; It can be seen that the fitness scores of the data segments/genes are determined such as “unfit” or “best genes” based on the number of iterations, and after a number of iterations/generations, the genes are removes due to their unfitness score, while best genes may survive from the selection of nature; paragraph 0124, “each solution is evaluated for fitness. For example, the objective function defined with respect to FIG. 2B above is set as a fitness function for evaluation, where a fitness score of a gene reflects the "goodness" of a solution. During the process of GA, only genes having adequate fitness scores can survive to future rounds of iterations. In this way after several iterations only the best genes, or best solutions, are left”]; and
delete one or more data segments included in the initial generation based on the fitness scores of the data segments [paragraphs 0037-0039, “genes can crossover with each other, mutate, or be removed from the population due to its unfitness to the nature. After several generations the best genes may survive from the selection of nature … … In each iteration, a set of most fitting genes (i.e., with the highest fitness scores) are selected”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of obtaining an optimum solution for a given search space of design parameters using genetic algorithm of Lyu to include a process of determining a fitness score of each data segment from the initial generation, and deleting one or more data segments based on the fitness scores of Wu. Doing so would help finding the optimal solution for a particular problem (Wu, 0037).
Lyu and Wu do not explicitly teach
each data chromosome includes a plurality of data segments;
delete from the database one or more data segments.
Fang teaches
each data chromosome includes a plurality of data segments [Fig. 4, abstract, “Each chromosome has multiple genes”];
delete from the database one or more data segments [Col. 2, lines 40-42, “generate a population of chromosomes and store the chromosomes in the memory arrangement. Each chromosome has a plurality of genes”; Since Lyu (as modified) teaches genes can be removed based on the fitness scores (Wu, 0037-0039), while Fang teaches the genes (included in the chromosome) are stored in the database, therefore, the combination of Lyu (as modified) and Fang teaches the claim limitation “delete from the database one or more data segments”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of obtaining an optimum solution for a given search space of design parameters using genetic algorithm of Lyu to include each data chromosome includes a plurality of data segments and the data segments are stored in the database of Fang. Doing so would help improving the result of the genetic algorithm during each generation (Lyu, 0032).
As per claim 5, Lyu, Wu and Fang teach the system of Claim 1.
Wu further teaches
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: for each of one or more data segments stored in the database:
obtain the fitness score of the data segment [paragraphs 0037-0039, “genes can crossover with each other, mutate, or be removed from the population due to its unfitness to the nature. After several generations the best genes may survive from the selection of nature … In each iteration, a set of most fitting genes (i.e., with the highest fitness scores) are selected”];
determine whether the fitness score of the data segment equals or is below a threshold fitness score [paragraphs 0037-0039, “genes can crossover with each other, mutate, or be removed from the population due to its unfitness to the nature. After several generations the best genes may survive from the selection of nature … In each iteration, a set of most fitting genes (i.e., with the highest fitness scores) are selected”; Since Wu teaches in each iteration, determining the scores of the genes, and Lyu in paragraph 0028 teaches a process of determining if the values of the genes are below a predetermined threshold, therefore, the combination of Lyu and Wu teaches the above claim limitation]; and
delete the data segment when the fitness score equals or is below the threshold fitness score [paragraphs 0037-0039, “genes can crossover with each other, mutate, or be removed from the population due to its unfitness to the nature; Since Wu teaches genes can be removed based on the fitness scores, and Lyu in paragraph 0028 teaches genes with the fitness values below the threshold may be deleted, therefore, the combination of Lyu and Wu teaches the above claim limitation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of obtaining an optimum solution for a given search space of design parameters using genetic algorithm of Lyu to include a process of obtaining the fitness score of the data segment, determining the fitness score of the data segment, and deleting the data segment when the fitness score equals or is below the threshold of Wu. Doing so would help finding the optimal solution for a particular problem (Wu, 0037).
As per claim 6, Lyu, Wu and Fang teach the system of Claim 1.
Lyu further teaches
the optimization criteria comprises a plurality of parameters that indicate an importance of the data segments [paragraph 0027, “The generation may then be sorted, with those having better fitness ranked at the top as the fittest chromosomes and/or genes”. It can be seen that each gene has a fitness value, examiner interprets the fitness value as the optimization metric; paragraph 0027, “fitness may be evaluated based on … whether a manufacturing cost for the bracket is below a predetermined threshold, based on simulation results of the model”].
As per claim 7, Lyu, Wu and Fang teach the system of Claim 1.
Lyu further teaches
detect that a difference between data segments of two consecutive generations of the genetic algorithm equals or is below a threshold difference [paragraph 0032, “the result of the genetic algorithm is improved during each generation and the rate of improvement falls below a predetermined rate”]; and
in response, determine that the genetic algorithm has converged [paragraph 0032, “Convergence may be determined if the result of the genetic algorithm is improved during each generation and the rate of improvement falls below a predetermined rate”].
As per claim 8, Lyu, Wu and Fang teach the system of Claim 1.
Lyu further teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the new set of data chromosomes using the cross-over operator by replacing one or more data segments from at least one data chromosome of the previous generation with the one or more selected data segments having the highest optimization metrics from data chromosomes of the previous generation [paragraph 0028-0031, “A second generation may be generated from the sorted initial generation by using any or all of the genetic operators, such as selection, crossover (or reproduction), and mutation. During selection, chromosomes and/or genes in the generation with fitness values below a predetermined threshold may be deleted … After selection, reproduction operation may be performed upon the selected chromosomes and/or genes. Two selected chromosomes and/or genes may be crossed over along a randomly selected crossover point. Two new child chromosomes and/or genes may then be created and added to the generation … Selection, reproduction, and mutation may result in a second generation having chromosomes and/or genes that are different from the initial generation. The average degree of fitness may be increased by this procedure for the second generation, since better fitted chromosomes and/or genes from the first generation may be selected”; Since the genes with the fitness values below a threshold are deleted, it can be seen that only genes with the high fitness values are selected to create the next chromosome].
As per claim 9, Lyu, Wu and Fang teach the system of Claim 1.
Wu further teaches
the at least one processor is configured to generate the new set of data chromosomes using the mutation operation by [paragraph 0126, “mutation operations to generate child chromosomes”]:
randomly selecting one or more data segments from the initial generation or the previous generation [paragraph 0126, “the highest valued solutions in terms of "fitness" are selected as parent chromosomes for mutation operations to generate child chromosomes”]; and
replacing one or more data segments from at least one data chromosome of the previous generation with the one or more randomly selected data segments [paragraph 0126-0129, “the highest valued solutions in terms of "fitness" are selected as parent chromosomes for mutation operations to generate child chromosomes … 714, the parent chromosomes from 708 are updated using the highest valued solutions determined from 712. Here good solutions are selected to replace their parents. In this way, a new (better) generation is formed from which an eventual solution is selected”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of obtaining an optimum solution for a given search space of design parameters using genetic algorithm of Lyu to include a process of randomly selecting one or more data segments from the initial generation or the previous generation, and replacing one or more data segments from at least one data chromosome of the previous generation with the one or more randomly selected data segments of Wu. Doing so would help finding the optimal solution for a particular problem (Wu, 0037).
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 5 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 6 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Lyu further teaches
A computer-readable medium for managing data stored in a database, wherein the computer-readable medium stores instructions which when executed by a processor perform a method comprising [paragraph 0024, “The computer program instructions may be loaded into the RAM for execution by the processor”];
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 5 and thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 11-13 and 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and the objections, 101 rejections above were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 is allowable for disclosing
The system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: for each of one or more data segments stored in the database:
obtain the fitness score of the data segment;
determine whether the fitness score of the data segment equals or is below a threshold fitness score;
when the fitness score equals or is below the threshold fitness score:
determine whether the data segment is needed to for at least one processing step of at least one software application;
upon determining that the data segment is needed for the at least one processing step:
determine a degree of impact associated with deleting the data segment; and
delete the data segment when the degree of impact equals or is below a impact threshold; and
delete the data segment upon determining that the data segment is not needed for any processing step of any software application.
The closest references found
Lyu et al. (US Pub. 2017/0024497) in paragraph 0028 teaches [During selection, chromosomes and/or genes in the generation with fitness values below a predetermined threshold may be deleted].
Wu et al. (US Pub. 2016/0171401) in paragraphs 0037-0039 teaches [crossovers can then generate another group of new genes. This new group of genes is then added to the original population, and those genes that have the lowest fitness scores from the original population are removed. After several rounds of iterations, the best genes (i.e. the optimal solutions) can be determined].
Natsoulis et al. (US Pub. 2021/0155987) in paragraph 0037 teaches [The change in position between the two stars illustrates the significant drop off in performance of the remaining 5144 genes after either the high impact "necessary" set of 3421 genes is removed (five-pointed star), or a random set of 3421 genes is removed (four-pointed star) from the full data set].
However, the prior art of record do not teach or suggest, individually or in combination
determine whether the fitness score of the data segment equals or is below a threshold fitness score;
when the fitness score equals or is below the threshold fitness score:
determine whether the data segment is needed to for at least one processing step of at least one software application;
upon determining that the data segment is needed for the at least one processing step:
determine a degree of impact associated with deleting the data segment; and
delete the data segment when the degree of impact equals or is below a impact threshold; and
delete the data segment upon determining that the data segment is not needed for any processing step of any software application.
Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claims 3-4 are considered to be allowable because they are dependent on claim 2.
Claims 11 and 17 are considered to be allowable for disclosing the similar subject matter to claim 2.
Claims 12-13 are considered to be allowable because they are dependent on claim 11.
Claims 18-19 are considered to be allowable because they are dependent on claim 17.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Greenwood (US Pub. 2017/0147722) describes a method for modifying the model units by exchanging or modifying at least part of the chromosome.
Ernest (US Patent 11,551,100) describes a method for improving the way computing devices execute genetic algorithms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-0103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM-5 PM, (CT).
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/TRI T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128