CTNF 17/978,686 CTNF 100394 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 statements (IDS) submitted on 11/01/2022, and 10/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ calculating the second matrix based on the third matrix ” of claim 2, and “ calculating the second matrix based on the fourth matrix ” of claim 3, “ calculating of the fifth matrix comprises: comparing a difference between an element of a matrix from a previous stage and an element of a matrix from a current stage with a threshold value; and outputting the matrix of the current stage as the fifth matrix based on a comparison result ” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-34-01 Claims 1-19 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. Regarding claims 1 and 10, claims 1 and 10 recites the limitation of: “ calculating a second matrix for importance of the data based on the first matrix ”. The term “ importance ” is subjective rendering the claim indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(b)(iv) regarding “A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgement without restriction may render the claim indefinite”. The claim limitation is restricted to being based on the first matrix, which is a matrix of correlated data, however, the subjective judgment itself of determining a level of importance is not restricted by this limitation. 07-34-03 Furthermore, the term “ importance ” in claims 1 and 10 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ importance ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-9 and 19 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence. Claims 11-18 inherit the same deficiency as claim 10 based on dependence. Regarding claims 2 and 11, claims 2 and 11 recite the limitation of: “ calculating of the second matrix comprises: calculating a third matrix by normalizing a row or a column of the second matrix; and calculating the second matrix based on the third matrix ”. It is unclear which matrix calculation comes first, the second or the third matrix. The recited claim limitation seemingly indicates that a second matrix needs to be generated first in order to normalize a row or column of the second matrix in order to calculate the third matrix. However, the claim limitation seemingly also indicates that the third matrix needs to be generated first due to the second matrix being based on the third matrix. Claims 3-4 inherit the same deficiency as claim 2 based on dependence. Claims 12-13 inherit the same deficiency as claim 11 based on dependence. Regarding claims 3 and 12, claims 3 and 12 recite the limitation of: “ calculating a fourth matrix by changing a value of an element of the third matrix associated with inestimable data among the data; and calculating the second matrix based on the fourth matrix ” It is unclear which matrix is generated before the other out of the second, third and fourth matrices. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, and claim 12 is dependent on claim 11. Claim 2 (and similarly claim 11) recites a claim limitations indicating that the third matrix is necessary in order to calculate the second matrix, “ calculating the second matrix based on the third matrix .” The limitation of claim 3 (and similarly claim 12) seemingly recites that the third matrix is necessary in order to generate the fourth matrix, “ calculating a fourth matrix by changing a value of an element of the third matrix ”. If the second matrix is necessary in order to calculate the third matrix, and the third matrix is necessary in order to calculate the fourth matrix, it is unclear how the second matrix is based on the fourth matrix. Furthermore, claims 3 and 12 recite the limitation of: “ calculating the second matrix based on the fourth matrix ”. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, and claim 12 is dependent on claim 11. Claim 2 (and similarly, claim 11) recite the limitation of: “ calculating the second matrix based on the third matrix .” It is unclear if the limitation of claim 3 and 12 of the second matrix being based on the fourth matrix is meant to replace the limitation of claim 2 or claim 11, respectively, of the second matrix being based on the third matrix, or if the second matrix is meant to be based on both the third and fourth matrix separately, or if it is meant to be understood as the second matrix is based on the fourth matrix and since the fourth matrix is calculated on the third matrix it is based on both the third and fourth matrix. Furthermore, claims 3 and 12 recites the limitation of: “ wherein the inestimable data comprises data that is not be estimated from a rest of data except the inestimable data among the data ”. The claims’ limitations are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Claim 4 inherits the same deficiency as claim 3 based on dependence. Claim 13 inherits the same deficiency as claim 12 based on dependence. Regarding claims 5 and 14, claims 5 and 14 recite the limitation of: “ calculating of the first matrix comprises: analyzing the correlation using information about the sensor; and calculating an adjacency matrix for the data using the correlation .” It is unclear if the adjacency matrix of the claim limitation is meant to be understood as the same as the first matrix, or if the adjacency matrix is another matrix entirely. Claim 6 inherits the same deficiency as claim 5 based on dependence. Claim 15 inherits the same deficiency as claim 14 based on dependence. Regarding claims 8 and 17, claims 8 and 17 recite the limitation of: “ comparing a difference between an element of a matrix from a previous stage and an element of a matrix from a current stage ”. The term “ stage ”, having not been previously introduced in the claims, makes it unclear as to what the stages, “ a previous stage ”, and “ a current stage ”, are stages of. Furthermore, claims 8 and 17 recite the limitations of: “ the calculating of the fifth matrix comprises: comparing a difference between an element of a matrix from a previous stage and an element of a matrix from a current stage with a threshold value; and outputting the matrix of the current stage as the fifth matrix based on a comparison result .” It is unclear what is meant by “ outputting the matrix of the current stage as the fifth matrix based on a comparison result ”. It is unclear if the “ a comparison result ” is meant to be understood as the comparison result from the earlier claim limitation of: “ comparing a difference between an element of a matrix from a previous stage and an element of a matrix from a current stage with a threshold value ” or if “ a comparison result ” is meant to be another comparison result entirely. Furthermore, it is unclear which matrix is meant to be used in the comparison calculations, “ a matrix from a current stage ”. The limitation later in claim 8 (and similarly in claim 17): “ the matrix of the current stage as the fifth matrix ” seemingly indicates that it is meant to be understood as the fifth matrix is used in the comparison since it is referred to as “ the matrix of the current stage ”, however it is unclear how the fifth matrix can be used in the comparison calculation when the fifth matrix is seemingly based on the output of the comparison calculation: “ the fifth matrix based on a comparison result ”. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the limitation of: “ A data analysis system, the system comprising: a sensor; the electronic device of claim 9 receiving data from the sensor ”. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation of: “ receiving data from a sensor ”. It is unclear if the sensor recited as receiving data in claim 19 is the sensor as of claim 1 or the sensor as of claim 19, or if the sensor of claim 1 and the sensor in claim 19 are the same sensor. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-19 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 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine , manufacture, or a composition of matter. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following mathematical formulas: “ perform a plurality of operations, and wherein the plurality of operations comprises:; calculating a first matrix for a correlation between the data; calculating a second matrix for importance of the data based on the first matrix; and calculating a rank of the data based on a result of a recursive calculation on the second matrix. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 1 recites additional elements of, “ electronic device ”, “ memory configured to store instructions ”, “ processor electrically connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions ”, and “ instructions are executed by the processor ”, “ processor ” and “ receiving data from a sensor ”. These additional elements of “ electronic device ”, “ memory configured to store instructions ”, “ processor electrically connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions ”, and “ instructions are executed by the processor ”, “ processor ” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the additional element of “ receiving data from a sensor ”, is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional elements of “ electronic device ”, “ memory configured to store instructions ”, “ processor electrically connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions ”, and “ instructions are executed by the processor ”, and “ processor ” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i)-(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the additional element of “ receiving data from a sensor ” is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the second matrix comprises: calculating a third matrix by normalizing a row or a column of the second matrix; and calculating the second matrix based on the third matrix. ” Claim 2 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 2 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2. Claim 3 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 2. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 3 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 3 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the second matrix based on the third matrix comprises: calculating a fourth matrix by changing a value of an element of the third matrix associated with inestimable data among the data; and calculating the second matrix based on the fourth matrix, wherein the inestimable data comprises data that is not be estimated from a rest of data except the inestimable data among the data. ” Claim 3 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 3 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 4 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 3 Claim 4 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 3. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 4 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 4 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the second matrix based on the fourth matrix comprises: estimating a degree of a correlation between the data using information about the; and calculating the second matrix by weighting the fourth matrix based on the degree. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 4 recites additional element of, “ the sensor ”. The additional element of “ the sensor ”, is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional element of “ the sensor ” is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 5 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 5 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 5 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the first matrix comprises: analyzing the correlation using information about; and calculating an adjacency matrix for the data using the correlation. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 5 recites additional element of, “ the sensor ”. The additional element of “ the sensor ”, is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional element of “ the sensor ” is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 6 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 5. Claim 6 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 5. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 6 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the information comprises metadata about. ” Claim 6 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 6 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 7 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 7 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 7 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 7 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the rank comprises: calculating a fifth matrix satisfying a termination condition of a recursive calculation; and outputting an element of the fifth matrix as a rank of the data. ” Claim 7 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 7 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 8 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 7. Claim 8 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 7. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 8 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 8 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the fifth matrix comprises: comparing a difference between an element of a matrix from a previous stage and an element of a matrix from a current stage with a threshold value; and outputting the matrix of the current stage as the fifth matrix based on a comparison result. ” Claim 8 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 8 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 9 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 9 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 9 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 9 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the plurality of operations further comprises based on the rank. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 9 recites additional element of, “ transmitting the data to a server ”. The additional element of “ transmitting the data to a server ”, is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(I), MPEP 2106.05(g). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional element of “ transmitting the data to a server ” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 19 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 9. Claim 19 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 9. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 19 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 19 recites the following mathematical concept: “ of claim 9 and calculating a rank for importance of the data; and, wherein comprises: a to perform a plurality of operations, and wherein the plurality of operations comprise: receiving the data; by analyzing the data. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 1 recites additional elements of, “ A data analysis system ”, “ system ”, “ sensor ”, “ server ”, “ electronic device ”, “ memory configured to store instructions ”, “ processor electrically connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions ”, and “ instructions are executed by the processor ”, “ processor ”, “ receiving data from a sensor ”, and “ providing a service to a user ”. These additional elements of “ A data analysis system ”, “ system ”, “ server ”, “ electronic device ”, “ memory configured to store instructions ”, “ processor electrically connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions ”, and “ instructions are executed by the processor ”, and “ processor ” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the additional elements of “ sensor ”, “ receiving data from a sensor ”, and “ providing a service to a user ” is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional elements of “ A data analysis system ”, “ system ”, “ server ”, “ electronic device ”, “ memory configured to store instructions ”, “ processor electrically connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions ”, and “ instructions are executed by the processor ”, and “ processor ” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i)-(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the additional element of “ sensor ”, “ receiving data from a sensor ”, and “ providing a service to a user ” is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 10, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 10 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process , machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 10 recites the following mathematical formulas: “ An operating method of an, the method comprising:; calculating a first matrix for a correlation between the data; calculating a second matrix for importance of the data based on the first matrix; and calculating a rank of the data based on a result of a recursive calculation on the second matrix. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 10 recites additional elements of, “ electronic device ”, and “ receiving data from a sensor ”. These additional elements of “ electronic device ” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the additional element of “ receiving data from a sensor ”, is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional elements of “ electronic device ” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i)-(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the additional element of “ receiving data from a sensor ” is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 11 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 10. Claim 11 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 10. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 11 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 11 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the second matrix comprises: calculating a third matrix by normalizing a row or a column of the second matrix; and calculating the second matrix based on the third matrix. ” Claim 11 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 11 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 12 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 11. Claim 12 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 11. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 12 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 12 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the second matrix based on the third matrix comprises: calculating a fourth matrix by changing a value of an element of the third matrix associated with inestimable data among the data; and calculating the second matrix based on the fourth matrix, wherein the inestimable data comprises data that is not be estimated from a rest of data except the inestimable data among the data. ” Claim 12 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 12 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12. Claim 13 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 12. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 13 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 13 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the second matrix based on the fourth matrix comprises: estimating a degree of a correlation between the data using information about; and calculating the second matrix by weighting the fourth matrix based on the degree. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 13 recites additional element of, “ the sensor ”. The additional element of “ the sensor ”, is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional element of “ the sensor ” is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 14 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 10. Claim 14 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 10. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 14 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 14 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the first matrix comprises: analyzing the correlation using information about; and calculating an adjacency matrix for the data using the correlation. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 14 recites additional element of, “ the sensor ”. The additional element of “ the sensor ”, is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional element of “ the sensor ” is generally linking to a particular technological field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 15 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 14. Claim 15 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 14. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 15 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 15 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the information comprises metadata about. ” Claim 15 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 15 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 16 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 10. Claim 16 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 10. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 16 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 16 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the rank comprises: calculating a fifth matrix satisfying a termination condition of a recursive calculation; and outputting an element of the fifth matrix as a rank of the data. ” Claim 16 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 16 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 17 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16. Claim 17 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 16. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 17 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 17 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the calculating of the fifth matrix comprises: comparing a difference between an element of a matrix from a previous stage and an element of a matrix from a current stage with a threshold value; and outputting the matrix of the current stage as the fifth matrix based on a comparison result. ” Claim 17 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 17 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 18 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 10. Claim 18 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 10. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 18 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 18 recites the following mathematical concept: “ further comprising: based on the rank. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 18 recites additional element of, “ transmitting the data to a server ”. The additional element of “ transmitting the data to a server ”, is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(I), MPEP 2106.05(g). For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional element of “ transmitting the data to a server ” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons the additional elements and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1), and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Grady et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0231552 A1), hereinafter “Grady” . With regards of claim 1, Grady teaches: An electronic device, comprising: (Fig. 7 item 712, 710; [0061] regarding program instructions stored in a storage device (magnetic disk) and loaded into memory when execution of program instructions is desired); and a processor electrically connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, (Fig. 7 items 704 (processor), 712 (Storage), 710 (memory); [0061]regarding program instructions stored in a storage device (magnetic disk) and loaded into memory when execution of program instructions is desired. Furthermore regarding the processor executing computer program instructions); wherein, when the instructions are executed by the processor, the processor is configured to perform a plurality of operations, (Fig. 7 items 704 (processor), 712 (Storage), 710 (memory); [0061]regarding program instructions stored in a storage device (magnetic disk) and loaded into memory when execution of program instructions is desired. Furthermore regarding the processor executing computer program instructions. Furthermore regarding the processor executing the program instructions which include the methods of Figs. 1, 3, and 5); and wherein the plurality of operations comprises: receiving data from a sensor; (Fig. 7 item 720 (image acquisition device); [0061] regarding an image acquisition device, such as an MRI (as a sensor device) connected to the computer to input image data; [0023] regarding the rsFMRI (functional MRI series) containing data from the MRI scanning device); calculating a first matrix for a correlation between the data; ([0022] regarding functional features extracted from functional MRI series by generating a network representing connectivity between regions in the brain; [0023] regarding the rsFMRI (functional MRI series) containing data from the MRI scanning device; [0028] regarding generating an MXN matrix based on the FMRI data; [0031] regarding a correlation matrix calculated from the MxN matrix); calculating a second matrix for importance of the data based on the first matrix; ([0031] regarding generating the network graph involves first generating the correlation matrix; [0034] regarding network features extracted from the network graph; [0035] regarding Node degree as a feature calculated where for each M nodes the weighted node degree is calculated and appended to the list of features (as a vector matrix); [0036] regarding Node betweenness calculated and appended to the list of features (as a vector matrix)); and calculating a rank of the data based on a result of a recursive calculation on the second matrix. ([0046] regarding a feature ranking method; [0049] regarding the feature ranking method including recursive feature elimination to determine the top 10 or fewer features; [0059] regarding the feature influence measure is used to rank the features that have more influence on a decision). Claim 10 is directed to a method that would be practiced by the apparatus as in claim 1. All steps performed by the method as in claim 10 would be practiced by the apparatus as in claim 1 as configured. The claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 10 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grady in view of Sawada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0374497 A1), hereinafter “Sawada” . With regards to claim 9, Grady teaches the electronic device of claim 1, as referenced above. Grady further teaches: wherein the plurality of operations further comprises transmitting the data to a device based on the rank. ([0059] regarding outputting the influence measure, which is used to rank the features; [0061] regarding communication with other devices via a network). Grady does not explicitly teach: transmitting the data to a server However, Sawada teaches: transmitting the data to a server ([0073] regarding transmitting data to a server via a network) Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Grady with Sawada because Grady teaches transmitting to other devices via a network and Sawada teaches transmitting data to a server via a network which is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2141(III)(D). Claim 18 is directed to a method that would be practiced by the apparatus as in claim 9. All steps performed by the method as in claim 18 would be practiced by the apparatus as in claim 9 as configured. The claim 9 analysis applies equally to claim 18. Deferring of Indication of Allowable Subject Matter Due to the numerous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections along with 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the Examiner is deferring indication of allowable subject matter over prior art, for claims 2-8, 11-17 and 19, pending resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 101 rejections made above. Prior Art Made of Record 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure : Zhang et al. (CN 109870914 B) Discusses a correlation matrix (page 3) Discusses selecting the most effective group of weight coefficient matrix according to the P term weighting coefficient matrix obtained by the recursion method by using the optimal order judging criterion (page 3) Liu (WO 2010139146 A1) Discusses creating a correlation matrix (page 5 paragraph 2) Discusses ranking of elements in matrix in order of priority and recursion (page 5 paragraph 2) Xue (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0111079 A1) Discusses creating a correlation vector ([0052)] Discusses use of correlation vector to create another vector r(t) ([0054]) Discusses ranking the data of the r(t) vector seemingly involving a recursive process ([0055]-[0057]) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am - 3:30pm. 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 at 571-320-6630. 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. /J.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 2 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 3 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 4 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 5 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 6 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 7 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 8 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 9 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 10 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 11 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 12 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 13 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 14 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 15 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 16 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 17 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 18 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 19 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/978,686 Page 20 Art Unit: 2182
