DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-6 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. 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
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being directed to unclear subject matter.
Claim 1 in line 8 recites the limitation “…mapped onto an RKHM.” However, RKHM is not defined in the claim. Based on the specification it appears that RKHM is reproducing kernel Hilbert C*-module, and thus should also be define in the claim.
Claim 5 in line 8 recites the limitation “…mapped onto an RKHM.” However, RKHM is not defined in the claim. Based on the specification it appears that RKHM is reproducing kernel Hilbert C*-module, and thus should also be define in the claim.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected similarly as to claims 1 and 5, as they do not overcome the deficiencies found in the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
9. Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As analyzed under the current 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; first, the claim is directed to a proper statutory category. Second, under step 2A prong 1, the claim is directed to abstract ideas; specifically mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations and/or mental processes/performed by pen and paper, i.e. calculating a product. They are highlighted below (underlined, italicized):
1. An analysis apparatus comprising:
a memory; and a processor configured to execute obtaining a data set of multiple data items having randomness; and
calculating, as an inner product or a norm of probability measures u and v being probability measures on the data set and taking values in a von Neumann algebra, by using a mapping ϕ that extends kernel mean embedding, an inner product or a norm of ϕ(u) and ϕ(v) mapped onto an RKHM.
10. As currently recited, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these highlighted limitations can be interpreted as mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, performed by pen and paper, i.e. performing a calculation.
Next, under step 2A prong 2, are there additional elements or combination of elements that apply or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The additional limitations of “memory” and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic machine) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further the claim recites “obtaining a data set of multiple data items having randomness.” However, this step is recited as a general means of obtaining data for use by the abstract idea, and thus fails to impose a meaningful limit on the remaining steps. Such data obtaining operations could be attached to any calculation and is necessary for use of the judicial exception, amounting to mere gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Lastly, under step 2B are there limitations indicative of an inventive concept (i.e. significantly more)? No, the additional limitations 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, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, obtaining data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception represents mere data gathering/data output and is insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEPE 2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
11. Claim 5 is rejected for similar reasons as presented above with reference to claim 1 as the recite the similar abstract ideas found in claim 1 above. Thus, the claim is directed to the same abstract idea without reciting meaningful limitations that are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
12. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non- statutory for at least the reason stated above, as they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend. The claims depend from claims 1 and 5, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite further limitations that abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental steps without reciting any additional limitations that make the claim any less abstract or that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims recite at least calculating, as an inner product or a norm of probability measures u and v being probability measures on the data set and taking values in a von Neumann algebra, by using a mapping ϕ that extends kernel mean embedding, an inner product or a norm of ϕ(u) and ϕ(v) mapped onto an RKHM.
The closest prior art of record US Pub. 20210232737 teaches a parameter sample data calculation unit that calculates a plurality of pieces of sample data for parameters for a simulator, based on a temporarily set distribution for the parameters, the simulator receiving inputs of data of a first type and outputting data of a second type; a second type sample data acquisition unit that inputs, to the simulator, target data of the first type indicating a target value for the data of the first type and sample data for the parameters and obtains sample data of the second type for each of the plurality of pieces of sample data for the parameters; and a parameter value calculation unit that calculates a weight for each of the plurality of pieces of sample data for the parameters based on the difference between target data of the second type indicating a target value for the data of the second type and the calculated sample data of the second type and based on the relationship between a first distribution followed by the target data of the first type and a second distribution that is the distribution for data of the first type and indicating a region indicating a target value to be achieved, and calculates, using the calculated weight, a value for the parameters corresponding to the target data of the first type and the target data of the second type.
However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest at least calculating, as an inner product or a norm of probability measures u and v being probability measures on the data set and taking values in a von Neumann algebra, by using a mapping ϕ that extends kernel mean embedding, an inner product or a norm of ϕ(u) and ϕ(v) mapped onto an RKHM.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D YAARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1249. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL D. YAARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights