CTNF 18/025,609 CTNF 86689 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 03/09/2023. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-6 were amended. Claim 8 was cancelled. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/09/2023 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 7 recite the limitation "subject and that outputs parameter values". It should be “subject and [[that]] outputs parameter values” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites the limitation “ and , calculate,” , it should be “ and [[,] calculate,” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires: 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category; 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d). 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106). Claims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 1: Claims 1, 3-5 are directed to the statutory category of device. Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1: For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded. A data calculation device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: calculate data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of a high-level model that simulates a subject , based on target data for outputs from the high-level model; and calculate, for a low-level model that simulates a portion of the subject and that outputs parameter values of the high-level model, data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the low-level model , based on the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the high-level model. The limitations “ calculate data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of a high-level model that simulates a subject ”, “ calculate, data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the low-level model” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “ A data calculation device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: “(general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h), particular machine- see MPEP 2106.05(b)) “ based on target data for outputs from the high-level model ” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) “ for a low-level model that simulates a portion of the subject and that outputs parameter values of the high-level model ” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h))(Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)) “ based on the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the high-level model ” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) Claim 1 Step 2B: The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 recites “ wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: calculate the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the high-level model by executing kernel herding based on a kernel mean of sample data of parameter values of the high-level model. ” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the method that is being used to calculate (math equations) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 4 recites “ wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: calculate the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the low-level model by executing kernel herding based on a kernel mean of sample data of parameter values of the low-level model .” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the method that is being used to calculate (math equations) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 5 recites “ wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: control the subject based on the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the calculated low-level model .” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of data that is being considered for control of the subject. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 1: Claim 7 Step 2A prong 1: The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A data calculation method by a computer, the data calculation method comprising: The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1 Claim 7 Step 2A prong 2: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “ A data calculation method by a computer, the data calculation method comprising : ” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Claim 7 Step 2B: The additional limitations found in claim 7, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (computer) and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing code, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B. Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 7 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Mineto Satoh, USPAT, US 10,474,770 B2, Published: Nov. 12, 2019, (hereafter Satoh) . Regarding claim 1 . Satoh teaches a data calculation device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (Col 8, Par 2, CPU and memory) : calculate data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of a high-level model that simulates a subject, based on target data for outputs from the high-level model (Fig 1, Output, posterior distribution) (Col 10, Lines 25-35, system model outputs the calculated probability distribution of the state vector) ; and calculate, for a low-level model that simulates a portion of the subject and that outputs parameter values of the high-level model, data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the low-level model, based on the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the high-level model (Col 15, Lines 15-30, creates a posterior distribution for each of the state variables, based on the observation) . Regarding claim 2 . Satoh teaches the data calculation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: execute a simulation by applying, to the low-level model, parameter values based on the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the low-level model (Col 18, Lines 60-70, simulation, used as observation models) (Col 30, Lines 30-40, posterior distributions obtained from observations at low frequency or low spatial resolution) ; execute a simulation by applying, to the high-level model, sample data of parameter values of the high-level model based on results of a simulation using the low-level model (Fig 1, unified posterior distribution, is based on the combination of distribution of the observed models) (Col 19, Lines 25-35, posterior distribution creating unit) ; and , calculate, based on similarities between the target data and sample data of outputs from the high-level model obtained as a result of the simulation, data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the high-level model based on target data for outputs from the high-level model (Col 19, Lines 35-45, new posterior distribution) . Regarding claim 5 . Satoh teaches the data calculation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: control the subject based on the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the calculated low-level model (Col 20, Lines 60-70, prevents an error from increasing by having multiple observations, thus controlling the output distribution) . Regarding claim 6 . Satoh teaches a data calculation device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (Col 8, Par 2, CPU and memory) : execute a simulation by applying, to a low-level model that outputs parameter values of a high-level model that simulates a subject, data indicating a distribution of parameter values of the low- level model, thereby calculating data indicating a distribution of the parameter values of the high-level model (Col 15, Lines 15-30, creates a posterior distribution for each of the state variables, based on the observation) ; and execute a simulation of the subject by applying, to the high-level model, the data indicating a distribution of parameter values that have been calculated (Fig 1, Output, posterior distribution) (Col 10, Lines 25-35, system model outputs the calculated probability distribution of the state vector) . Regarding claim 7 . Satoh teaches a data calculation method by a computer, the data calculation method comprising: calculating data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of a high- level model that simulates a subject, based on target data for outputs from the high- level model (Fig 1, Output, posterior distribution) (Col 10, Lines 25-35, system model outputs the calculated probability distribution of the state vector) ; and calculating, for a low-level model that simulates a portion of the subject and that outputs parameter values of the high-level model, data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the low-level model, based on the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the high-level model (Col 15, Lines 15-30, creates a posterior distribution for each of the state variables, based on the observation) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mineto Satoh, USPAT, US 10,474,770 B2, Published: Nov. 12, 2019, (hereafter Satoh), in views of Jun-Jie Chen, NPL, “Agent-based model with multi-level herding for complex financial systems”, Published: 11 February 2015 (hereafter Chen) . Regarding claim 3 . Satoh teaches the data calculation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: calculate the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the high-level model ( Col 10, Lines 25-35, system model outputs the calculated probability distribution of the state vector) . Satoh does not teach calculate by executing kernel herding based on a kernel mean of sample data of parameter values of the high-level model. Chen teaches calculate by executing kernel herding based on a kernel mean of sample data of parameter values of the high-level model (Page 2, Fig 1a) (Page 3, Col 1, Par 2 and 3, herding at stock level, herding at sector level, and herding at market level, for the average of connected I-groups) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Satoh to incorporate the teachings of Chen to execute a kernel herding for the high level model because it provides insight into the spatio-temporal interactions of the models at the microscopic level (Chen, Page 1, abstract) Regarding claim 4 . Satoh teaches the data calculation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: calculate the data indicating a posterior distribution of parameter values of the low-level model (Col 15, Lines 15-30, creates a posterior distribution for each of the state variables, based on the observation) . Satoh does not teach calculate by executing kernel herding based on a kernel mean of sample data of parameter values of the low-level model. Chen teaches calculate by executing kernel herding based on a kernel mean of sample data of parameter values of the low-level model (Page 2, Fig 1a) (Page 3, Col 1, Par 2 and 3, herding at stock level, herding at sector level, and herding at market level, for the average of connected I-groups) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Satoh to incorporate the teachings of Chen to execute a kernel herding for the high level model because it provides insight into the spatio-temporal interactions of the models at the microscopic level (Chen, Page 1, abstract) Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record, listed on PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patrik Grznar, NPL, “Modeling and Simulation of Processes in a Factory of the Future”, discloses modelling and simulating processes in factories of the future, implementing new manufacturing concepts, controlling the manufacturing processes. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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. /A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189 /REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 2 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 3 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 4 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 5 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 6 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 7 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 8 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 9 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 10 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 11 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 12 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 13 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 14 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/025,609 Page 15 Art Unit: 2189
Prosecution Insights