DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/917,560 filed on 10/7/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the independent claims recite the term “important” with regard to row(s) or column(s) to be processed, and recites the term “necessary” with regard to performing parameter updating for the row or column to be processed. The Examiner notes that the specification describes the terms in such detail that they are definite as claimed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
See Paragraph 0071 of the instant specification, which describes an “important” row or column to be processed as one that is (or becomes) a non-zero vector, and which can be determined based on the lower bound by calculating
K
_
i
>
λ
q
. See also Paragraphs 0046, 0058-0059, 0067 and 0077, which describes “unnecessary” parameter updating as that which corresponds to a row or column to be processed that is a zero vector, and which can be determined based on the upper bound by calculating
K
¯
i
≤
λ
q
.
Accordingly, the claimed terms in question are not indefinite per their description provided in the specification, and the Examiner thus gives the terms their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 1, it recites a data processing method comprising calculating norms of row(s) or column(s) of a matrix, calculating a lower bound and an upper bound of an optimal condition value when a solution of a parameter vector corresponding to a particular row or column is a zero vector, determining whether the row or column is important based on the lower bound to extract the important row(s)/column(s), updating a corresponding parameter, and determining whether parameter updating for the row or column is necessary based on the upper bound, to perform parameter updating.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (see MPEP § 2106), such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. See e.g. the numerous mathematical formulas in the instant specification, as well as Figures 3-4, which describes a mathematical algorithm in which each step of the claimed method is explicitly described by a mathematical equation. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim fails to recite any additional elements, and is purely abstract. As described above, the claim recites a mathematical algorithm comprising a series of mathematical calculations and/or formulas. However, the claim does not recite a computer implementation, any hardware or software component, or any additional limitation that would make the claim any less abstract. Since the entire claim falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, as discussed above, the claim does not include additional elements and therefore cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, Claim 1 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claims 2-3, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims recite further limitations that are abstract mathematical concepts without reciting any additional elements that make the claim(s) any less abstract, that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims do not qualify as a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A and do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. Accordingly, Claims 2-3 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claim 4, it recites an apparatus configured to calculate norms of row(s) or column(s) of a matrix, calculate a lower bound and an upper bound of an optimal condition value when a solution of a parameter vector corresponding to a particular row or column is a zero vector, determine whether the row or column is important based on the lower bound to extract the important row(s)/column(s), update a corresponding parameter, determine whether parameter updating for the row or column is necessary based on the upper bound, and perform necessary parameter updating.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance, such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas, as described above with respect to Claim 1. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites calculation circuitry to perform the claimed calculations, determination circuitry to perform the claimed determinations, extraction circuitry to perform the claimed extraction, and updating circuitry to perform the claimed updates. However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions such as mathematical calculations. For instance, the claims fail to provide any detail as to the structure or function of the circuits. As claimed, they are generic computer components that merely restate their own mathematical function. Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using generic computer component(s) to perform mathematical calculations or mental steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claim 5, it recites calculating norms of row(s) or column(s) of a matrix, calculating a lower bound and an upper bound of an optimal condition value when a solution of a parameter vector corresponding to a particular row or column is a zero vector, determining whether the row or column is important based on the lower bound to extract the important row(s)/column(s), updating a corresponding parameter, and determining whether parameter updating for the row or column is necessary based on the upper bound, to perform parameter updating.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance, such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas, as described above with respect to Claim 1. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites a computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the recited “calculating”, “determining”, and “updating” steps described above. However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer function(s) such as mathematical computations and data processing. Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a generic computer to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claims 6-7, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 5, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims recite further limitations that are abstract mathematical concepts without reciting any additional elements that make the claim(s) any less abstract, that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims do not qualify as a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A and do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. Accordingly, Claims 6-7 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claims 8-9, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 4, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims recite further limitations that are abstract mathematical concepts without reciting any additional elements that make the claim(s) any less abstract, that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims do not qualify as a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A and do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. Accordingly, Claims 8-9 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bodor et al., “rCUR: an R package for CUR matrix decomposition” – discloses a software implementation of the general CUR matrix decomposition, in which an original data matrix A is decomposed into a product of three matrices, C, U, and R, wherein subset(s) of rows and columns are selected from an original data matrix A to be included in the matrices R and C, respectively. An “importance score” is computed for each column and row of A based on an input rank parameter, and selected in accordance with the computed score(s).
Wang et al., “Improving CUR Matrix Decomposition and the Nystrom Approximation via Adaptive Sampling” – discloses an adaptive column/row sampling algorithm for the CUR matrix decomposition, which does not employ the importance scores (i.e. the statistical leverage scores).
Boutsidis et al. (US 2016/0117285) – discloses finding a CUR matrix decomposition, in which matrices C and R are constructed by sampling columns and rows with leverage scores, i.e. “importance” scores
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW SANDIFER whose telephone number is (571)270-5175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW D SANDIFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151