Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112(b).
The rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn based on amendment to claims.
Applicant asserts that the bounds of claims 1-10 are clear based on amendment to claim 1 to recite “A system for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network, the system comprising at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As currently amended the bounds of the claim remain unclear because it is unclear where the preamble begins and ends because the clauses “the system comprising” and “cause the at least one processor to” make it unclear as to where the preamble begins and ends. Examiner recommends moving the clause after “the system comprising” to the body of the claim.
35 USC 101.
Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept but are merely based on or involve a mathematical concept as the alleged mathematical concepts are not actually recited in the claim (Remarks p. 11). In support, Applicant asserts “receiv[ing] a tensored basis function having D dimensions and coefficients A_d, B_d, and C_d, where A_d is a zeroth-derivative coefficient for the zeroth-derivative terms of the ODE, B_d is a first derivative coefficient for first-derivative terms of the ODE, and C_d is a second-derivative coefficient for second-derivative term of the ODE”, with similar arguments to other features in the claim (Remarks p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Other than the “receiving”, which Examiner has characterized as an additional element not reciting the mathematical concepts, every element in quotes above comprises recited mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships in an ordinary differential equation (ODE). A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. See MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2).I.A.
Applicant further asserts that amending the claim to further recite “A system for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network, the system comprising at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: […] embed the training the MPS based on the updated tensored basis function” results in the claim not reciting mathematical concepts, citing an example from MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) (Remarks p. 11 bottom – 12 top).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Other than the limitation “embed the updated tensored basis function by forming a matrix product state (MPS)” the above highlighted limitations are treated by Examiner in the Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analysis. The following limitations recite mathematical concepts under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis:
- a tensored basis function having D dimensions and coefficients A_d,B_d, and C_d, where A_d is a zeroth-derivative coefficient for zeroth-derivative terms, B_d is a first-derivative coefficient for first-derivative terms, and C_d is a second-derivative coefficient for second-derivative terms;
- define Ahat as a function of A and D, B_hat as a function of A, B, and D, and Chat as function of A, C, and D; - define an orthogonal exotic algebra a, b, c;
- apply a, b, and c, along with A_hat, B_hat, and C_hat, as coefficients for the zeroth-derivative, first-derivative, and second-derivative terms, respectively, thereby generating an updated tensored basis function; and
- embed the updated tensored basis function by forming a matrix product state (MPS).
As to “training the MPS based on the updated tensored basis function”, consistent with the analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B, the training the MPS merely generally links the mathematical concepts to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation is unlike the example asserted by Applicant as to MPEP 2106.04(a)(1), with respect the claim predominantly recited math, with mere general linking to the training.
Applicant further asserts under the Step 2A prong 2 analysis that the claim recites at least the following additional elements, wherein the claim improves the functioning of a computer and improves another technology or technical field, citing examples from the specification:
A system for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network, the system comprising at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
- receive a tensored basis function having D dimensions and coefficients A_d, B_d, and C_d, where Ad is a zeroth-derivative coefficient for zeroth-derivative terms of the ODE, B_d is a first-derivative coefficient for first-derivative terms of the ODE, and C_d is a second-derivative coefficient for second-derivative terms of the ODE;
- define A_hat as a function of A and D, B_hat as a function of A, B, and D, and Chat as function of A, C, and D;
- define an orthogonal exotic algebra a, b, c;
- apply a, b, and c, along with A_hat, B_hat, and Chat, as coefficients for the zeroth- derivative, first-derivative, and second-derivative terms, respectively, thereby generating an updated tensored basis function; and-
embed the updated tensored basis function by forming a matrix product state (MPS) and training the MPS based on the updated tensored basis function.
(Remarks p. 13-15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Of the above claim limitations, only “A system for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network, the system comprising at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:”, and “training the MPS” comprise the additional elements. The rest of the above limitations recite the mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Any purported improvement results directly from the math, not the generically recited training the MPS, or the application (“apply it”) of the math in a processor. “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Applicant further asserts that at least the additional elements of “[a] system for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network, the system comprising at least on processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: […] embed the updated tensored basis function by forming a matrix product state (MPS) and training the MPS based on the update tensored basis function”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not the above recited limitations that cause the purported improvement in the functioning of the computer or the machine learning system, but rather the mathematical relationships and calculations in the remaining claim elements, the near entirety of the body of the claim. Furthermore the element in the preamble “for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network” merely recites an intended result, the intended result of the math, with the remainder of the preamble merely reciting “apply it” in a processor, or merely including instructions to implement the math on a computer. And, the training of the MPS merely generally links the math to the technological environment or field of use.
Applicant further asserts that Ex parte Desjardins is applicable to the instant claims (Remarks p. 16 bottom – 17 top).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims in Ex parte Desjardins are unlike the instant claims. In Ex parte Desjardins, it was determined that additional elements within the body of the claim reflected the improvement. (Ex parte Desjardins p. 9 top). In the instant application, any purported improvement directly results from the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations.
Applicant further asserts under the Step 2B analysis that the claims results in significantly more than the abstract idea, an inventive concept of embedding ODEs into a tensor radial basis network (Remarks p. 18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The system for “embedding ODEs into a tensor radial basis network”, recited in the preamble merely recites an intended use of the mathematical concepts, and is not positively recited in the body of the claim. Any purported improvement that results is a direct result of the math recited in the body of the claim. The 'inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law or nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. MPEP 2106.05.I.
Applicant further asserts that claim 1 recites specific features other than what is a well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, including unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application (Remarks p. 18). Applicant cites the following steps for what is unconventional:
a*a = 1 a*b=1 a*c=1
b*b=0 c*c=0 b*c=0
a2*a=a b2*b=0 c2*c=1
which is recited in claim 1, in part, as:
[a] system for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network, the system comprising at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
[…]
- define an orthogonal exotic algebra a, b, c;
- apply a, b, and c, along with A_hat, B_hat, and Chat, as coefficients for the zeroth- derivative, first-derivative, and second-derivative terms, respectively, thereby generating an updated tensored basis function; and-
embed the updated tensored basis function by forming a matrix product state (MPS) and training the MPS based on the updated tensored basis function by forming a matrix product state (MPS) and training the MPS based on the updated tensored basis function
Examiner respectfully disagrees. What is arguably unconventional is the math:
a*a = 1 a*b=1 a*c=1
b*b=0 c*c=0 b*c=0
a2*a=a b2*b=0 c2*c=1
which as claimed is:
- define an orthogonal exotic algebra a, b, c;
- apply a, b, and c, along with A_hat, B_hat, and Chat, as coefficients for the zeroth- derivative, first-derivative, and second-derivative terms, respectively, thereby generating an updated tensored basis function; and
- embed the updated tensored basis function by forming a matrix product state (MPS) by forming a matrix product state (MPS).
The remaining limitations are an intended result, and generically linking to a particular technological environment or field of use. As stated above The 'inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law or nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. MPEP 2106.05.I.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the bounds of the claim are unclear because it is unclear where the preamble begins and ends. Claim 1 recites “A system for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network, the system comprising at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” followed by steps in the body of the claim. Based on this claim structure, it appears that the entire clause in parenthesis may be the preamble, however the clauses “the system comprising” and “cause the at least one processor to” make it unclear as to where the preamble begins and ends. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the whole clause in parenthesis as being included in the preamble. Furthermore, the preamble is not being given patentable weight. For purposes of clarity, Examiner recommends moving the clause after “the system comprising” to the body of the claim. Claims 2-10 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
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.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites iterative mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships for solving ordinary differential equations. Specifically the claim recites the following mathematical concepts:
- a tensored basis function having D dimensions and coefficients A_d,B_d, and C_d, where A_d is a zeroth-derivative coefficient for zeroth-derivative terms of the ODE, B_d is a first-derivative coefficient for first-derivative terms of the ODE, and C_d is a second-derivative coefficient for second-derivative terms of the ODE;
- define Ahat as a function of A and D, B_hat as a function of A, B, and D, and Chat as function of A, C, and D; - define an orthogonal exotic algebra a, b, c;
- apply a, b, and c, along with A_hat, B_hat, and C_hat, as coefficients for the zeroth-derivative, first-derivative, and second-derivative terms, respectively, thereby generating an updated tensored basis function; and
- embed the updated tensored basis function by forming a matrix product state (MPS).
See Specification [0106-0115] describing the tensored basis function in terms of mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. See Specification [0116-0119] describing A_hat, B_hat, and C_hat in terms of mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. See Specification [0120-0122] describing exotic algebra and derivatives for updating tensored basis function in terms of mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. See Specification [0123] describing embedding the tensored basis function forming a matrix product state in terms of mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements not reciting Mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof include: a system for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into tensor radial basis network, the system comprising at least on processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive, and training the MPS based on the math. These additional elements do no more than generally link the additional element to the mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” in at least on processor, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore receiving data comprises an insignificant extra solution activity. Furthermore training the MPS based on the math merely generally links the mathematical concepts to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore the preamble reciting “for embedding an ordinary differential equation (ODE) into a tensor radial basis network”, merely recites and intended result. For these reasons, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Moreover, under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim merely generally links the additional element to the math in a manner that merely recites “apply it’ in a computer, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, recites an intended result, and generally links to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore the receiving data comprises well understood, routine and conventional activity. MPEP 2106.05(d).i. receiving data. For these reasons the claim when considered as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to the claim 15 analysis. Under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claims 2-10 merely further mathematically limit the claim 1 mathematical elements recited. Claims 2-10 contain no further additional elements that would require further consideration under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B.
11-20 are directed to methods that would be executed by the apparatus of claims 1-10. All steps recited by claims 1-10 would be practiced by the method of claims 11-20. The claim 1-10 analysis applies equally to claims 11-20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F.
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 Caldwell can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182