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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 5/04/2023, which is 371 of PCT/JP20202/041848 with filing date of 11/10/2020. Claims 1-6 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are independent claims.
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 U.S.C. § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-4 are drawn to a device, claim 5 is drawn to a method and claim 6 is drawn to non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1, 5 and 6 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A learning device comprising: a processor; and a storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, perform to:
classifies latent variables obtained from learning data used for learning into a label feature quantity and a non-label feature quantity; decodes the label feature quantity and the non-label feature quantity classified by using decoder parameters to generate reconstruction data; and optimizes the decoder parameters to minimize a classification error between the label feature quantity and label information used for classification by using the label feature quantity, and minimize a reconstruction error by using the label feature quantity and the non-label feature quantity. “
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “decodes the label feature quantity and the non-label feature quantity classified by using decoder parameters to generate reconstruction data” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Yes, the limitation “optimizes the decoder parameters to minimize a classification error between the label feature quantity and label information used for classification by using the label feature quantity, and minimize a reconstruction error by using the label feature quantity and the non-label feature quantity” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Yes, the limitation “classifies latent variables obtained from learning data used for learning into a label feature quantity and a non-label feature quantity” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of classify different data, which is an observation or evaluation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “device” and “processor” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, This limitation “classifies latent variables obtained from learning data used for learning into a label feature quantity and a non-label feature quantity” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “device” and “processor” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, This limitation “classifies latent variables obtained from learning data used for learning into a label feature quantity and a non-label feature quantity” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-4 which are dependent on claim 1 the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claim 2
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “randomly exchanges each parameter of the non-label feature quantity with the learning data in batch processing”, “combines the exchanged non-label feature quantity and the label feature quantity”, “extracts a label feature quantity from the feature quantity” are the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, the limitation “calculates the classification error by using the label feature quantity extracted by the label feature quantity extraction unit” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “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”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 3
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, incorporates the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional?
Dependent claim 4
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “
PNG
media_image1.png
420
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
100
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” is the abstract idea of a mathematical formula or equation, as directed to “a claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the non-label feature quantity includes M-C (C is an integer of 1 or more and M is an integer of 2 or more) parameters”, the Examiner is not sure what it means for the non-label feature quantity as M-C can be read as 2-1.. In light of the Specification [0015] where it recites “including M parameters for each piece of data. Here, zi,label is a label feature quantity Zi, label=[zi,1,...,zi,c] including C (C is an integer of 1 or more) parameters, and … non-label feature quantity
PNG
media_image3.png
14
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[zi,c+l, ...,zi,M] including M-C (M is an integer of 2 or more) parameters”, and to expedite prosecution in consistent with the specification, the claim 2 is interpreted as wherein the non-label feature quantity includes M (M is an integer of 2 or more) parameters. Also please remove the parenthesis in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
“HybridNet: Classification and Reconstruction Cooperation for Semi-Supervised Learning”, Robert et al, 2018.
Referring to Claims 1, 5 and 6, Robert discloses a learning device comprising: a processor; and a storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, perform to:
classifies latent variables obtained from learning data used for learning into a label feature quantity and a non-label feature quantity; (page 7 of Robert, “HybridNet can be trained on a partially labeled dataset, i.e. that is composed of labeled pairs Dsup = {(x (k) , y(k) )}k=1..Ns and unlabeled images Dunsup = {x (k)}k=1..Nu . Each batch is composed of n samples, divided into ns image-label pairs from Dsup and nu unlabeled images from Dunsup”)
decodes the label feature quantity and the non-label feature quantity classified by using decoder parameters to generate reconstruction data; (Fig. 1 and pages 2-3 and 7-8 of Robert, where the x is the input data, it goes through an autoencoder/hybridnet model to decode input data x to generate reconstruction data as output data) and
optimizes the decoder parameters to minimize a classification error between the label feature quantity and label information used for classification by using the label feature quantity, and minimize a reconstruction error by using the label feature quantity and the non-label feature quantity. (the claimed “optimizes.. to minimize and minimize a reconstruction error” are “intended result” here without having much functional limitations as to how is the construction errors are minimized. MPEP 2173.05(g). The claim only stated that “minimize” the error is achieved based on data, such as “by using the label feature quantity and the non-label feature quantity”, but the claim does not further discuss how these data are used to “optimize” to “minimize” classification error (or what is even the claimed “classification error”) and “minimize” the reconstruction error. Hence, this limitation is interpreted as having decoder parameters, classification error between the label feature quantity and label information used for classification by using the label feature quantity. Pages 7-8 of Robert, “In HybridNet, we chose to keep discriminative and unsupervised paths separate so that they produce two complementary reconstructions (xˆu, xˆc) that we combine with an addition into xˆ = xˆu + xˆc. Keeping the two paths independent until the reconstruction in pixel space, as well as the merge-by-addition strategy allows us to apply different treatments to them and influence their behavior efficiently. The merge by addition in pixel space is also analogous to wavelet decomposition where the signal is decomposed into low and high-pass branches that are then decoded and summed in pixel space. The reconstruction loss that we use is a simple mean-squared error between the input”)
Referring to Claim 3.(currently amended) The learning device according to claim 1 includes an auto encoder. (page 6 of Robert, autoencoder with encoders and decoders)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 101 rejection still remains.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Fei et al (US 20210390270 A1): an unsupervised cross-lingual sentiment classification model (which may be referred to as multi-view encoder-classifier (MVEC)) that leverages an unsupervised machine translation (UMT) system and a language discriminator. Unlike previous language model (LM)-based fine-tuning approaches that adjust parameters solely based on the classification error on training data, embodiments employ an encoder-decoder framework of an UMT as a regularization component on the shared network parameters. In one or more embodiments, the cross-lingual encoder of embodiments learns a shared representation, which is effective for both reconstructing input sentences of two languages and generating more representative views from the input for classification. Experiments on five language pairs verify that an MVEC embodiment significantly outperforms other models for 8/11 sentiment classification tasks.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142