DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/014,389 filed on 1/4/2023 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 .
Specification
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per independent Claims 1, 6 and 9, each recites “modify[ing] the calculated difference so as to cancel an error between a sequentially calculated difference.” This limitation is considered a purely result-oriented limitation because it recites a desired result, i.e. “so as to cancel an error between a sequentially calculated difference”, without reciting any steps detailing how to accomplish the result. For example, “modifying the calculated difference” fails to describe a way to accomplish the claimed result of canceling an error between a sequentially calculated difference.
Purely result-oriented limitations fail to comply with the written description requirement when the way to achieve the result is not known to those skilled in the art, i.e. when it is the inventor’s purported contribution to the art. When this is the case, the way to achieve the result must be recited in the claim in a manner that is commensurate with the supporting disclosure to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The way to achieve the result does not necessarily need to be recited in as much detail as the preferred embodiment(s) described in the disclosure as long as those skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed.
In this case, “modify[ing] the calculated difference so as to cancel an error between a sequentially calculated difference” is clearly part of the inventor’s purported contribution to the art. See e.g. Figures 2 and 9 as well as the “Solution to Problem” section and Paragraph 0067 in the instant specification. However, the “modifying” limitation does not provide adequate disclosure within the claims themselves, and thus fails to be commensurate with the supporting disclosure in the instant specification. Therefore, the claims in question lack the specificity necessary to provide sufficient written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) such that those skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the claimed invention.
As per the dependent Claims 2-5, 7-8 and 10, they are rejected for the reasons presented above, due to their dependency upon their respective base claims.
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 1-10 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 calculating differences between functions when changing a state of function variables, and modifying the calculated difference to cancel an error between a sequentially calculated difference.
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 at least Paragraphs 0049-0059 of the instant specification, which describes claimed calculations via mathematical equations 5-8. 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. The claim additionally recites an information processing device comprising a memory to store instructions and a processor to execute the instructions, in order to perform the claimed mathematical steps. However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer function(s) such as executing instructions to perform mathematical computations). For example, the claim fails to include any detail(s) as to the structure of the claimed “information processing device” or “processor”, or how they particularly function to perform the recited calculations or functions. Moreover, the “memory” merely operates to generically store computer instructions for performing the claimed mathematical computations, and the claim fails to recite structural or functional limitations that would make the memory any more particular than a generic computer memory. Such additional limitations fail to provide a meaningful limitation(s) on the claimed abstract steps, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claim additionally recites calculating differences in parallel, but this too is recited without detail as to how – structurally or functionally – the software or the processor performs the parallel calculations. Thus, this limitation does not call for any parallel operation different from those available in existing generic computer devices, i.e. it is claimed generically and does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements described above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 processor or generic computer component(s) to perform the claimed mathematical steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Furthermore, storing and retrieving data in a memory is well-understood, routine, conventional activity that fails to qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, Claim 1 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claims 2-5, 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.
Claims 2-5 recite further limitations that are abstract mathematical steps 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 2-5 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per independent Claims 6 and 9, they similarly recite calculating differences between functions when changing a state of function variables, and modifying the calculated difference to cancel an error between a sequentially calculated difference.
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, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims additionally recites a “processor” or a “computer” with a computer readable medium storing a program to perform the claimed mathematical steps. However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer function(s) such as executing instructions to perform mathematical computations). For example, the claim fails to include any detail(s) as to the structure of the claimed elements or how they particularly function to perform the recited calculations or functions. Such additional limitations fail to provide a meaningful limitation(s) on the claimed abstract steps, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claims additionally recite calculating differences in parallel, but this too is recited without detail as to how – structurally or functionally – the software or the processor performs the parallel calculations. Thus, this limitation does not call for any parallel operation different from those available in existing generic computer devices, i.e. it is claimed generically and does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements described above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 processor or generic computer component(s) to perform the claimed mathematical steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, Claims 6 and 9 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claims 7-8 and 10, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claims 6 and 9, respectively, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7-8 and 10 recite further limitations that are abstract mathematical steps 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 7-8 and 10 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:
US 2018/0075342 – corresponds to JP 2016-176040/ JP 2018-041351, describes a technique for parallelizing a state update of a dynamical system, wherein multiple variables are selected and differences are calculated in parallel
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
Prosecution Insights