DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 1/2/2025 for application number 18,018,373.
Claims 1, 3-8 are pending.
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 .
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, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 7, and 8 recite:
… calculate each probability of each data point being an outlier by using a temperature parameter t, wherein t > 0, wherein the probability is calculated by using log-likelihood of each data point besides the temperature parameter t; lower the temperature parameter t towards 0 with a plural of step; and output the probability.
(2A, prong 1) The underlined portions of the claim recite an abstract idea, specifically a mathematical calculation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states that, “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation.” Here, the claims explicitly recite calculating a probability of each data point being an outlier with a temperature parameter t, t > 0 by using the log-likelihood of each data point besides the temperature parameter, and lower the temperature parameter with a plurality of steps. The specification at paragraphs 42-60 (as published) show the equations that are calculated in more particularity.
(2A, prong 2) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements of [a] output the probability and [b] generic computer elements of a memory, processor, and computer-readable medium in claims 1 and 8. Additional element [a] is insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to mere necessary data outputting for the abstract idea. Additional element [b] is a mere instruction to apply the exception because it merely adds generic computer components after the fact to the abstract idea. Even when all of the additional elements are considered together in the claim as a whole, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception to the abstract idea.
(2B) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional element [a] is well understood, routine, and conventional, analogous to presenting offers and gathering statistics, see MPEP 2106.05(d) citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additional element [b] is a mere instruction to apply the exception because it merely adds generic computer components after the fact to the abstract idea. Even when all of the additional elements are considered in combination with the abstract idea, they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they only add insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional with mere instructions to apply the exception to the abstract idea.
With respect to dependent claims 3-6, these claims each add additional mathematical calculations to the abstract idea. Claim 3 adds using a pre-specified ratio to calculate the probability. Claim 4 recites setting the probability as a sigmoid function. Claim 5 recites keeping the temperature parameter t constant until either convergence or a pre-specified number of gradient descent steps pass. Finally, claim 6 recites decreasing the temperature parameter exponentially until either after convergence or a pre-specified number of gradient descent steps pass. Each of these limitations adds values or steps to the mathematical calculation in independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (1) the claim does not recite a mathematical concept, but is based on one and (2) the claim is an improvement to a technical field. First, the claims explicitly recite particular calculations (and the specification at paragraphs 34-48, as filed, show the formulas used). Second, for a claim to improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, the improvement must be in the specification, the claims must reflect the improvement, and the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement in the claim. Here, the specification discloses an improved mathematical model for determining outlier values; however, this is an improvement to the field of mathematics, and not an improvement to how a computer functions or other technological fields. The Applicant points to paragraph 71 (as published, 59 as filed) which states:
The proposed disclosure can be applied to various fields, because detecting outliers is important for various applications. For example, outliers can correspond to malicious behavior of a user, and the detection of outliers can prevent cyber-attacks. Another, application is the potential to analyze and improve the usage of training data for increasing the prediction performance of various regression tasks. For example, wrongly labeled samples can deteriorate the performance of a classification model.
This paragraph would seem to further weigh against the claims being directed to a technical improvement. Outlier detection does have various practical applications, but the claim does not contain any elements that reflect the disclosed improvements to different fields.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew T. Chiusano whose telephone number is (571)272-5231. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. 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.
/ANDREW T CHIUSANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights