DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of application on 07/06/2022.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a second information processing apparatus configured to communicate…” in claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below for further comments.
“a first acquisition unit configured to acquire inference target medical data and selection information…” in claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below for further comments.
“a first inference unit configured to perform first partial inference processing…” in claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below for further comments.
“a first output unit configured to output a result…” in claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below for further comments.
“a second acquisition unit configured to acquire …” in claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below for further comments.
“a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing …” in claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below for further comments.
“an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from another information processing apparatus, a result …” in claim 11. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below for further comments.
“a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing…” in claim 11. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below for further comments.
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.
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 9 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 9 recites the limitation "… to other second partial model…". It is unclear whether this other second partial model refers to the “other partial model” different from “a predetermined second partial model” in claim 5 or a second partial model from “a plurality of second partial models” recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitation “a second information processing apparatus configured to communicate…” in independent claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “a second information processing apparatus configured to communicate…” refers to communicating and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim limitation “a first acquisition unit configured to acquire inference target medical data and selection information …” in claim 1. in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor (Fig. 3 and ¶[0040] “The first information processing apparatus 2 may be composed of a computer including a processor, a memory, and a storage. In this case, programs stored in the storage are loaded into the memory and the programs are executed by the processor to thereby implement the functions and processing of the storage unit 10, the first acquisition unit 11, the first inference unit 12, the output unit 13, the inference result acquisition unit 14, the display control unit 15, and the like”). However, the written description fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function of acquiring inference target medical data and selection information. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). (See MPEP § 2181.05(II)(B)). In particular, the specification states the claimed function of acquiring inference data to be from storage and with no adequate description of acquiring selection information (¶[0036], “The first acquisition unit 11 acquires the inference target medical data from the storage unit 10, and further acquires the selection information indicating a plurality of second partial models to be applied to the inference target medical data.”). However, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform acquiring data from a storage unit. The use of a storage unit for acquiring data is not adequate structure for performing the acquiring because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “a first acquisition unit configured to acquire inference target medical data and selection information …” refers to acquiring inference target medical data and selection information and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim limitation “a first inference unit configured to perform first partial inference processing…” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor (Fig. 3 and ¶[0040] “The first information processing apparatus 2 may be composed of a computer including a processor, a memory, and a storage. In this case, programs stored in the storage are loaded into the memory and the programs are executed by the processor to thereby implement the functions and processing of the storage unit 10, the first acquisition unit 11, the first inference unit 12, the output unit 13, the inference result acquisition unit 14, the display control unit 15, and the like”). However, the written description fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function of performing first partial inference processing. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). (See MPEP § 2181.05(II)(B)). As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “a first inference unit configured to perform first partial inference processing…” refers to performing first partial inference processing and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim limitation “a first output unit configured to output …” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor (Fig. 3 and ¶[0040] “The first information processing apparatus 2 may be composed of a computer including a processor, a memory, and a storage. In this case, programs stored in the storage are loaded into the memory and the programs are executed by the processor to thereby implement the functions and processing of the storage unit 10, the first acquisition unit 11, the first inference unit 12, the output unit 13, the inference result acquisition unit 14, the display control unit 15, and the like”). However, the written description fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function of outputting. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). (See MPEP § 2181.05(II)(B)). In particular, the specification states the claimed function of outputting to an information processing unit (¶[0034], “The first information processing apparatus 2 also includes an output unit 13 that outputs a first inference result obtained by the first inference processing and the selection information acquired by the first acquisition unit 11 to the second information processing apparatus 3.”). However, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform outputting because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “a first output unit configured to output …” refers to outputting and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim limitation “a second acquisition unit configured to acquire …” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “a second acquisition unit configured to acquire …” refers to acquiring and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim limitation “a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing …” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing …” refers to performing second inference processing and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim limitation “an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from another information processing apparatus, a result of first inference processing …” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function (¶[0045] “In this case, the second information processing apparatus 3 is located on an external server outside the first information processing apparatus 2, and includes a second acquisition unit 70 that acquires the first inference result from the first information processing apparatus 2”), as the acquisition unit is described to be located on an external server with no further information on said acquisition unit. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from another information processing apparatus, a result of first inference processing …” refers to acquiring results of inference processing from another information processing apparatus and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim limitation “a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing…” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing…” refers to performing inference processing and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Therefore, the claims 1 and 11 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiency from claim 1 and therefore are rejected on the same basis.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “a second information processing apparatus configured to communicate…” in claim 1, “a first acquisition unit configured to acquire inference target medical data and selection information…” in claim 1, “a first inference unit configured to perform first partial inference processing…” in claim 1, “a first output unit configured to output a result…” in claim 1, “a second acquisition unit configured to acquire …” in claim 1, “a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing …” in claim 1, “an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from another information processing apparatus, a result …” in claim 11, and “a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing…” in claim 11. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (FP 7.31.01.)
Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiency from claim 1 and therefore are rejected on the same basis.
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.
The claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 1 includes the steps of:
An information processing system comprising: a first information processing apparatus; and a second information processing apparatus configured to communicate with the first information processing apparatus via a network,
wherein the first information processing apparatus includes:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire inference target medical data and selection information indicating a partial model to be applied to the inference target medical data;
a first inference unit configured to perform first partial inference processing on the inference target medical data using a first partial model,
the first partial model including an input layer and at least some of intermediate layers of a neural network,
wherein a plurality of second partial models includes the intermediate layers not included in the first partial model, and
the neural network includes the input layer, the intermediate layers, and an output layer; and
a first output unit configured to output a result of the first inference processing and the selection information to the second information processing apparatus, and
wherein the second information processing apparatus includes:
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire the result of the first inference processing and the selection information from the first information processing apparatus; and
a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing by inputting the result of the first inference processing to a second partial model selected from among the plurality of second partial models based on the selection information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the bolded limitations above are directed to a mental process able to be performed in the human mind through the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator. A human can:
perform partial inference processing on inference target medical data,
select a partial model from a plurality of partial models based on selection information, and
perform inference processing by inputting the result of an inference processing to the selected partial model.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
As drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the following limitations recite additional elements which amount to generic computer components recited at a high level of generality, with merely the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on the additional elements, or merely using the additional elements as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
An information processing system comprising: a first information processing apparatus; and a second information processing apparatus configured to communicate with the first information processing apparatus via a network,
wherein the first information processing apparatus includes: a first acquisition unit configured to…
…using a first partial model, the first partial model including an input layer and at least some of intermediate layers of a neural network,
wherein a plurality of second partial models includes the intermediate layers not included in the first partial model, and
the neural network includes the input layer, the intermediate layers, and an output layer;
a first output unit configured to …
wherein the second information processing apparatus includes: a second acquisition unit configured to …
a second inference unit configured to….
As drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the following limitations, underlined above, recite additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
acquire inference target medical data and selection information indicating a partial model to be applied to the inference target medical data,
output a result of the first inference processing and the selection information,
acquire the result of the first inference processing and the selection information from the first information processing apparatus.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in order to determine whether they integrates the exception into a practical application. Therefore, no meaningful claim limits are imposed practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim limitation(s) reciting generic computer elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
The claim reciting the additional element(s) of “acquiring” and/or “outputting” amount to necessary data gathering and output.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in order to determine whether they warrant significantly more consideration. Thus, the claim does not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in order to determine whether they warrant significantly more consideration. Thus, the claim does not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is ineligible.
Claims 2-13 further recite limitations that encompass mental evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-13 are ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0108442 A1), hereafter Chang, in view of Sheller et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0042878 A1), hereafter Sheller.
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses:
An information processing system comprising: a first information processing apparatus; and a second information processing apparatus configured to communicate with the first information processing apparatus via a network (Fig. 1 and ¶[0030] teaches communicable local and remote ends as first and second information processing apparatus respectively),
wherein the first information processing apparatus includes: a first acquisition unit configured to acquire inference target medical data (¶[0035] teaches acquiring target medical data from hospitals) …,
a first inference unit configured to perform first partial inference processing on the inference target medical data using a first partial model, the first partial model including an input layer and at least some of intermediate layers of a neural network (Fig. 4B and ¶[0076-0078] teaches performing first partial inference on target medical data at local end using a partial neural network PT1 comprising input and intermediate layers),
wherein a plurality of second partial models includes the intermediate layers not included in the first partial model (Fig. 4B element PT2 and ¶[0079-0080] teaches the remote end to include partial models, i.e. different numbers of computation layers arranged in different orders, not included in the local end),
the neural network includes the input layer, the intermediate layers, and an output layer (Fig. 4A and Fig. 4B),
a first output unit configured to output a result of the first inference processing … to the second information processing apparatus (Fig. 4B and [0079] teaches transmitting the output of the local end partition to the remote end),
wherein the second information processing apparatus includes: a second acquisition unit configured to acquire the result of the first inference processing … from the first information processing apparatus (Fig. 4B and ¶[0079] teaches the remote end to acquire the result of the local end inference processing),
a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing by inputting the result of the first inference processing to a second partial model ... (Fig. 4B and ¶[0079] teaches obtaining the result of the neural network as performing second inference processing by inputting the result of the first inference processing to a second partial model PT2).
While Chang discloses a) wherein the first information processing apparatus includes: a first acquisition unit configured to acquire inference target medical data…, b) a first output unit configured to output a result of the first inference processing … to the second information processing apparatus, and c) a second inference unit configured to perform second inference processing by inputting the result of the first inference processing to a second partial model, they do not disclose:
acquire … selection information indicating a partial model to be applied to the inference target medical data,
output … the selection information to the second information … apparatus,
a second partial model selected from among the plurality of second partial models based on the selection information.
Sheller discloses:
acquire … selection information indicating a partial model to be applied to the inference target medical data (Fig. 2, Fig. 5, ¶[0066] and ¶[0031] teaches receiving models and their public/private layer information as selection information indicating a partial model to be applied to target medical records),
output … the selection information to … second information…apparatus (Figs. 3, 5, and 6 teaches outputting the selection information to data stores and edge devices),
a second partial model selected from among the plurality of second partial models based on the selection information (Fig. 5, ¶[0066-0068] teaches selecting the partial model from a plurality of options, i.e. different types of model layers, based on the selection information of whether the layer is public or private).
Chang and Sheller are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, distributed learning and neural networks.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chang to include acquire … selection information indicating a partial model to be applied to the inference target medical data, output … the selection information to the second information … apparatus, a second partial model selected from among the plurality of second partial models based on the selection information., based on the teachings of Sheller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement classification layers in a trusted environment, as suggested by Sheller (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 2, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Chang further discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of second partial models is a partial model generated by additional training with a fixed parameter for the first partial model (¶[0071] and ¶[0080] teaches the computation layers of the first partial model being trained with a fixed parameter to generate the trained second partial models).
Regarding claim 4, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Sheller further discloses:
wherein the selection information is information including an application order of the plurality of second partial models (¶[0033] teaches the selection information to include an order of the processing of layers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chang to include wherein the selection information is information including an application order of the plurality of second partial models, based on the teachings of Sheller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement classification layers in a trusted environment, as suggested by Sheller (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 4. Sheller further discloses:
wherein the second inference unit performs inference processing using a predetermined second partial model in the plurality of second partial models based on the application order and determines whether to perform inference processing using other partial model depending on a result of the inference processing (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and ¶[0069] teaches performing inference processing using a predetermined second partial model at the edge device in the plurality of second partial models in edge devices based on the application order and determines whether to perform inference processing using other partial model depending on a result of the inference processing, i.e. if the result of the partial model is from a final layer or not).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chang to include wherein the second inference unit performs inference processing using a predetermined second partial model in the plurality of second partial models based on the application order and determines whether to perform inference processing using other partial model depending on a result of the inference processing, based on the teachings of Sheller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement classification layers in a trusted environment, as suggested by Sheller (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 5. Sheller further discloses:
wherein the second inference unit determines not to perform inference processing using other partial model depending on the result of the inference processing (Fig. 5 and ¶[0069] teaches not to performing inference processing using other partial model depending on the result of the inference processing being from the last layer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chang to include wherein the second inference unit determines not to perform inference processing using other partial model depending on the result of the inference processing, based on the teachings of Sheller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement classification layers in a trusted environment, as suggested by Sheller (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Chang further discloses:
wherein the output unit outputs an output from the intermediate layers forming the first partial model to the second information processing apparatus (Fig. 4B and [0079]).
Regarding claim 8, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Sheller further discloses:
wherein the first information processing apparatus further includes an inference result acquisition unit, and wherein the inference result acquisition unit acquires an inference result from the second inference unit (Fig. 4 and ¶[0063] teaches acquiring inference results from edge devices).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chang to include wherein the first information processing apparatus further includes an inference result acquisition unit, and wherein the inference result acquisition unit acquires an inference result from the second inference unit based on the teachings of Sheller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement classification layers in a trusted environment, as suggested by Sheller (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Sheller further discloses:
wherein in the second information processing apparatus, the plurality of second partial models includes a second partial model including the output layer, and the second inference unit performs the second inference processing using the second partial model (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 teaches multiple partial models at each edge device with its own output layer).
Claims 11-13 are substantially similar to claim 1 but for the recitation of a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute an information processing method, which is taught by Chang (¶[0104]), and thus the claims are rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0108442 A1), hereafter Chang, in view of Sheller et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0042878 A1), hereafter Sheller, in further view of Vepakomma et al. ("Split learning for health: Distributed deep learning without sharing raw patient data"), hereafter Vepakomma.
Regarding claim 3, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. They do not discloses:
wherein the second partial models are partial models in which at least one of an inference task to be performed by each second partial model and an inference class of each second partial model is different from that of other second partial model.
Vepakomma discloses:
wherein the second partial models are partial models in which at least one of an inference task to be performed by each second partial model and an inference class of each second partial model is different from that of other second partial model (Figure 4 (b) teaches partial models where at least one of an inference task to be performed by each second partial model and an inference class, i.e. label, of each second partial model is different from that of other second partial model).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chang, in view of Sheller, to include wherein the second partial models are partial models in which at least one of an inference task to be performed by each second partial model and an inference class of each second partial model is different from that of other second partial model, based on the teachings of Vepakomma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to train multiple models that solve different supervised learning tasks, as suggested by Vepakomma (page 5, paragraph 4, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 10, Chang, in view of Sheller, discloses the information processing system according to claim 5. They do not disclose:
wherein the second inference unit further inputs the result of the inference processing to other second partial model.
Vepakomma discloses:
wherein the second inference unit further inputs the result of the inference processing to other second partial model (Figure 4 (c) teaches further inputting the result of the inference processing to other second partial models).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chang, in view of Sheller, to include wherein the second inference unit further inputs the result of the inference processing to other second partial model, based on the teachings of Vepakomma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to train multiple models that solve different supervised learning tasks, as suggested by Vepakomma (page 5, paragraph 4, lines 4-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
U.S. Pub No. 20210334621 A1: Shimizu et al. teaches split learning neural networks.
U.S. Pub No. 20200372360 A1: Vu et al. teaches split learning neural networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAIRA ZAHIN MAUNI whose telephone number is (703)756-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm (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, MATT ELL can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/H.Z.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2141
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141