DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/024,940 filed on 3/6/2023 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 .
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 acquiring principal minor determinants of a first Hermitian matrix that represents a probability distribution, and generating a second Hermitian matrix based on the principal minor determinants of the first Hermitian matrix.
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 e.g. Figures 3, 5, 7 and Paragraphs 0020-0021 and 0042-0055 of the instant specification, which describes the above steps as abstractly operating on mathematical operand(s) (i.e. matrices/matrix elements) via mathematical formulas and determinations of mathematical relationships/comparisons. 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. Accordingly, 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 2-8, 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 2-8 recite further limitations that are abstract mathematical steps or concepts 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 2-8 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claim 9, it recites acquiring principal minor determinants of a first Hermitian matrix that represents a probability distribution, and generating a second Hermitian matrix based on the principal minor determinants of the first Hermitian matrix.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility, 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 claim additionally recites a “computer” for performing the claimed mathematical steps. However, the computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer function(s) such as mathematical computations). For example, the claim fails to include any detail(s) as to the structure of the claimed “computer” or how it particularly functions 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. Accordingly, 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 computer 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, Claim 9 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claim 10, it recites acquiring principal minor determinants of a first Hermitian matrix that represents a probability distribution, and generating a second Hermitian matrix based on the principal minor determinants of the first Hermitian matrix.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility, 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 claim additionally recites a computer readable medium storing a program which causes a computer 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. Accordingly, 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 computer 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, Claim 10 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
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