DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4 and 9-24 are pending in this application. Claims 1-2 and 4 are original; claims 3 and 9-10 are currently amended; claims 11-24 are new; claims 5-8 are canceled.
Remarks
Applicant is reminded in manner of making amendments to the claims. Claims 11-24 are new, however, they include underlining. See C.F.R. 1.121(c)(3) which reads in part “Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of "new" and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.”
Priority
The present application, 18013812, filed 12/29/2022 is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2021/076849, International Filing Date: 02/19/2021 claims foreign priority to CN202010750194.2, filed 07/30/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner with the exception of the reference that is lined-through because 20011011958 is not a correct patent application publication number. See C.F.R. 1.98(b)(2) for more information.
Drawings
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A. data consistency check device comprising a memory and a processor as specified in claims 9 and 19-24
B. non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as specified in claim 10
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract is objected to because it refers to purported merits and speculative applications of the invention and compares the invention with the prior art. Furthermore, the abstract does not include the steps of the process and/or organization and operation of the device. Examiner suggest amending the abstract to include the method steps of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.71(a) which requires “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. The following should be corrected.
A. In claim 12 lines 2-3, “K-means clustering on source data X and backup data or recovery data Y” should read “the K-means clustering on the source data X and the backup data or recovery data Y” instead because these are already introduced in claim 1 from which the claim depends.
B. In claim 13 line 2, “the respective class numbers and the clustering center points” should read “respective class numbers and clustering center points” instead because these are already introduced in claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-24 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.
Claim 1 recites “calculating a dimension N of classification results, and selecting a support vector or a complete basis, wherein any source data and any backup data or recovery data are able to be linearly represented by a support vector or a complete basis; and calculating an ICC of each subblock, and in a case where the ICC is equal to 1, confirming data consistency and determining that data consistency check is completed” in lines 11-15. It is unclear how the step of “calculating a dimension N of classification results …” is related to the preceding steps. The claim recites calculating a dimension N of classification results, however, there is no previous step of performing any classification. Therefore, it is unclear how and where the classification results are obtained and how the classification results relates with the other limitations of the claim. Further, clarification is required. Claims 9-10 recite a similar limitation and are rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-4 and 11-18 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Claims 19-24 inherit the same deficiency as claim 9 by reason of dependence.
Further, it is also unclear how the step of “calculating an ICC of each subblock …” is related to the preceding steps. The claim recites calculating an ICC of each subblock, however, there is no previous step of generating any subblock. Therefore, it is unclear how each subblock is obtained and how each subblock relates with the other limitations of the claim. Further, clarification is required. Claims 9-10 recite a similar limitation and are rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-4 and 11-18 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Claims 19-24 inherit the same deficiency as claim 9 by reason of dependence.
Claim 11 recites “C=E[(X-E(X))(X-E(X))T]” in line 3. The variables E and T are not defined in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear how these are supposed to be interpreted. Further, clarification is required. Claim 22 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites “the dimensionality-reduced subblocks” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, clarification is required. Claim 23 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
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 1-4 and 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 1-4 and 11-18 recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Claims 9 and 19-24 recite a device and, therefore, is a machine. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and, therefore, is an article of manufacture.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A data consistency check method based on an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), comprising:
synchronously performing K-means clustering on source data X and backup data or recovery data Y, and determining respective class numbers and clustering center points;
determining whether the class numbers are the same and the clustering center points are the same, in a case where the class numbers are not the same and/or the clustering center points are not the same, returning a result of inconsistency, and in a case where the class numbers are the same and the clustering center points are the same, continuing to perform data comparison;
calculating a dimension N of classification results, and selecting a support vector or a complete basis, wherein any source data and any backup data or recovery data are able to be linearly represented by a support vector or a complete basis; and
calculating an ICC of each subblock, and in a case where the ICC is equal to 1, confirming data consistency and determining that data consistency check is completed.
The above limitations amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See at least page 6 bottom for the Equations for performing the K-means clustering; and page 7 bottom for calculating the ICC. Furthermore, the steps of “determining whether the class numbers are the same and the clustering center points are the same or not” and “confirming data consistency” when the ICC is equal to 1 is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses manually comparing respective class numbers and clustering center points of the source data X and backup or recovery data Y whether they are equal or not and manually determining that the data is consistent when the ICC is 1. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, claims 2-4 and 11-18 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Furthermore, claim 2 recites further details of the abstract idea of how the class numbers and clustering center points are determined; claim 3 recites further abstract idea of performing dimensionality reduction using Principal Component Analysis (PCA); claim 4 recites further details of the abstract idea of how the ICC is calculated; claim 11 recites further details of the abstract idea of performing the PCA; claim 12 recites further details of the abstract idea of performing the K-means clustering claim 13 recites further details of the abstract idea determining the class numbers and clustering center points; claim 14 recites further details of the abstract idea of how the classification results are obtained; claim 15 recites further details of the abstract idea of selecting the support vector or the complete basis; claim 16 recites further details of the abstract idea of how the ICC is calculated; claim 17 recites further details of the abstract idea of how the ICC is calculated; claim 18 recites further details of the abstract idea selecting the support vector or the complete basis which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 2-4 and 11-18 are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B, claims 2-4 and 11-18 do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 9 and 19-24, they are directed to a device that practices the method of claims 1-4, 11, 16 and 18 respectively. All steps performed by device of claims 9 and 19-24 are included in the method of claims 1-4, 11, 16 and 18 respectively. Claims 1-4, 11, 16 and 18 analysis applies equally to claims 9 and 19-24 respectively. Furthermore, the additional limitations recited in the device claims will be discussed below.
Regarding claim 10, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store computer programs to implement the method of claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 10. Furthermore, the additional limitations recited in the medium claim will be discussed below.
Under step 2A prong 2, claim 9 recites the following additional elements: a memory configured to store computer programs, and a processor configured to execute the computer programs; and claim 10 recites the following additional elements: the computer programs are executed by a processor. However, the additional elements of “a memory” and “a processor” in claim 9; and “a processor” in claim 10 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing computer programs; and as a generic computer component for executing the computer programs) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claims 9 and 10 do not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a memory” and “a processor” in claim 9; and “a processor” in claim 10 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing computer programs; and as a generic computer component for executing the computer programs) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) for more information. The claims do not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 9-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Bourbonnais et al. (US 10956403 B2) discloses a method for verifying data consistency comprising the steps of: loading data from an update-in-place data structure (source data) to a first set of hash buckets; loading data from one or more append-only data structures (recovery data) to a second set of buckets wherein the first set of hash buckets and the second set of hash buckets are based on hash values calculated using the same hash function; performing a bucket level comparison between the data in the first set of hash buckets and data in the second set of hash buckets; and generating a difference report based on the bucket level comparison wherein a difference in a specific key value or checksum between the first and second set of hash buckets indicates a mismatch indicating the update-in-place data structure and the one or more append-only data structures do not match. However, Bourbonnais does not explicitly teach the bucket level comparison are based on respective class numbers and clustering center points from K-means clustering and using ICC to confirm data consistency. Therefore, Bourbonnais fails to explicitly teach or suggest synchronously performing K-means clustering on source data X and backup data or recovery data Y, and determining respective class numbers and clustering center points; determining whether the class numbers are the same and the clustering center points are the same, in a case where the class numbers are not the same and/or the clustering center points are not the same, returning a result of inconsistency, and in a case where the class numbers are the same and the clustering center points are the same, continuing to perform data comparison; calculating a dimension N of classification results, and selecting a support vector or a complete basis, wherein any source data and any backup data or recovery data are able to be linearly represented by a support vector or a complete basis; and calculating an ICC of each subblock, and in a case where the ICC is equal to 1, confirming data consistency and determining that data consistency check is completed as recited in claim 1. Claims 9-10 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 (571)272-5767
Prosecution Insights