DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
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
The instant application having Application No. 18065217 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P 609(c), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 12/13/22, 8/23/23, and 10/19/23 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
II. REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is a manufacture type claim. Claim 7 is a process type claim. Claim 13 is a machine type claim. Therefore, claims 1-18 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
As per claim 1,
2A Prong 1:
“Listing combinations of feature amounts that are correlated with a target label” A user mentally or with pencil and paper lists out combinations of features related to making a classification.
“creating a policy to achieve the target label for a prediction target based on a difference between the listed combinations of the feature amounts and a combination of feature amounts of the prediction target” The user mentally or with pencil and paper compares the various lists of combinations with the proposed label and tests them against each other in order to determine the differences.
“determining appropriateness of the created policy based on performance information that indicates past performances” The user mentally or with pencil and paper determines which combination performs best and uses it as a policy).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a prediction program for causing a computer to perform processing” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a prediction program for causing a computer to perform processing” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
As per claims 2-4 and 6 disclose additional mental steps similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 5, this claim discloses additional mental steps and generic computer hardware similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 7,
2A Prong 1:
“Listing combinations of feature amounts that are correlated with a target label” A user mentally or with pencil and paper lists out combinations of features related to making a classification.
“creating a policy to achieve the target label for a prediction target based on a difference between the listed combinations of the feature amounts and a combination of feature amounts of the prediction target” The user mentally or with pencil and paper compares the various lists of combinations with the proposed label and tests them against each other in order to determine the differences.
“determining appropriateness of the created policy based on performance information that indicates past performances” The user mentally or with pencil and paper determines which combination performs best and uses it as a policy).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
“a computer” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
“a computer” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
As per claims 8-10 and 12 disclose additional mental steps similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 11, this claim discloses additional mental steps and generic computer hardware similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 13,
2A Prong 1:
“Listing combinations of feature amounts that are correlated with a target label” A user mentally or with pencil and paper lists out combinations of features related to making a classification.
“creating a policy to achieve the target label for a prediction target based on a difference between the listed combinations of the feature amounts and a combination of feature amounts of the prediction target” The user mentally or with pencil and paper compares the various lists of combinations with the proposed label and tests them against each other in order to determine the differences.
“determining appropriateness of the created policy based on performance information that indicates past performances” The user mentally or with pencil and paper determines which combination performs best and uses it as a policy).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
“A control unit that executes processing” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
“A control unit that executes processing” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
As per claims 14-16 and 18 disclose additional mental steps similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 17, this claim discloses additional mental steps and generic computer hardware similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
As per claims 1-18, The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. This causes the claims to be confusing and thereby rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention. The following rejections are examples of the poor translation, but the claims at large need to be rewritten into a format suitable for U.S. Practice.
As per claims 1, 7, and 13, these claims call for “determining appropriateness of the created policy based on performance information that indicates past performances.” Here the term “appropriateness” is a relative term. While the claim discloses that the “appropriateness” is based on performance information, what determines what is appropriate and what is not? This causes the claim to be confusing, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 2, 8, and 14, these claims disclose the phrase “in the processing of creating.” This phrase is confusing because it is not clear what is being referred to. In the process of creating what? Is it the creation of the combination of feature amounts? Creating a policy in the parent claim? It is unclear what is being preferred to here by the “processing of creating” and this causes the claim to be confusing and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 3-4, 9-10, and 15-16, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 2, 8, and 14, these claims disclose the limitation “a combination of feature amounts that corresponds to the difference is created as the policy.” The Examiner is unable to determine just what this phrase is intended to claim. “the difference” refers to what? The difference between listed combinations and the combination of feature amounts of the prediction target? Is this the difference between all of the different lists, just some of them? Is it just a number (i.e. if one combination has five features, and the other combination has 3, is the difference ‘2’?). This causes the claim to be confusing, and thereby rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 3-4, 9-10, and 15-16, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 3, 9, and 15, these claims disclose the phrase “in the processing of determining.” This phrase is confusing because it is not clear what is being referred to. In the process of determining what? Is it the determination of the determination of the policy of claim 3? The determining appropriateness of claim 1? It is unclear what is being preferred to here by the “processing of determining” and this causes the claim to be confusing and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 4, 10, and 16, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 4, 10, and 16, these claims disclose the phrase “in the processing of listing” This phrase is confusing because it is not clear what is being referred to. In the process of listing what? Is it the listing of the relist of claim 4, the listing of claim 1? It is unclear what is being preferred to here by the “processing of listing” and this causes the claim to be confusing and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 4, 10, and 16, these claims disclose the phrase “in the processing of creating.” This phrase is confusing because it is not clear what is being referred to. In the process of creating what? Is it the creation of the combination of re-creating? Creating a policy in the parent claim 1? In the process of creating in parent claim 2? It is unclear what is being preferred to here by the “processing of creating” and this causes the claim to be confusing and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claim 4, 10, and 16, these claims call for “the combinations of the feature amounts are re-listed by setting, as uncontrollable, the feature amounts included in the combinations in a case where the event related to the combination of feature amounts included in the policy does not occur at the predetermined occurrence frequency in the past performances included in the performance information.” The Examiner is unable to determine just what this phrase is intended to claim. This appears to call for the feature amounts to be “uncontrollable.” What does that mean? That the feature amounts can be any number? That the features themselves are somehow “uncontrollable?” How can features be “set” to be uncontrollable. How can the “amount” be “uncontrollable? This causes the to be confusing and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 5, 11, and 17, these claims disclose the phrase “in the processing of creating.” This phrase is confusing because it is not clear what is being referred to. In the process of creating what? Is it the creation of the plurality of policies of claim 5? Creating a policy in the parent claim 1? It is unclear what is being preferred to here by the “processing of creating” and this causes the claim to be confusing and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
As per claims 5, 11, and 17, these claims call for “outputting a policy determined to be appropriate” Here the term “appropriate” is a relative term. While the claim discloses that the “appropriate” is based on performance information, what determines what is appropriate and what is not? This causes the claim to be confusing, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and claim the intended invention.
IV. REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiners Note: Some rejections will be followed by an ‘EN’ that will denote an examiners note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (“Dropout Feature Ranking for Deep Learning Models”) in view of Singh et al (US 20200234110 A1).
As per claims 1, 7 and 13, Chang discloses, “A …prediction program for causing a … to perform processing including: listing combinations of feature amounts” (Pg.2, particularly section 3.2; EN: this denotes feature ranking via variational dropout, which removes individual features at particular rates. The listing combination here is the combination of features that remain each pass after the dropout for that pass have been performed). “that are correlated with a target label” (Pg.2, particularly section 3.2, first paragraph; EN: this denotes trying to find an intended target prediction).
“creating a policy to achieve the target label for a prediction target based on a difference between the listed combinations of the feature amounts and a combination of feature amounts of the prediction target” (Pg.2-3, particularly section 3.2; EN: this denotes performing variational dropout on the features to attempt to find the best combination of features to perform the classification in comparison to other runs of different combinations of feature with the current run being the combination of features of the prediction target and the list being previous combinations, with the goal of finding a “policy” that is the best combination.).
“determining appropriateness of the created policy based on performance information that indicates past performances” (Pg.3-4, particularly section 4.3; EN: this denotes testing the performance of the various combinations based on test set performance, which is in the past as you can’t have the score without finishing the training and receiving the outcome).
However, Chang fails to explicitly disclose, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a prediction program for causing a computer to perform processing.”
Singh discloses, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a prediction program for causing a computer to perform processing” (pg.12, particularly paragraph 0108; EN: this denotes the hardware used to run the system).
Chang and Singh are analogous art because both involve neural networks.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of neural networks to combine the work of Chang and Singh in order to use computer hardware to run their neural networks.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow the system to be “executable by processors of one or more computing devices…” (Singh, Pg.12, paragraph 0108) or in the case of Chang, allow the system to be run on typical hardware like processors, memory, and computer systems.
Therefore before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of neural networks to combine the work of Chang and Singh in order to use computer hardware to run their neural networks.
As per claims 2, 8, and 14, Chang discloses, “in the processing of creating, a combination of feature amounts that corresponds to the difference is created as the policy” (Pg.2-3, particularly section 3.2; EN: this denotes performing variational dropout on the features to attempt to find the best combination of features to perform the classification in comparison to other runs of different combinations of feature with the current run being the combination of features of the prediction target and the list being previous combinations, with the goal of finding a “policy” that is the best combination.).
As per claims 3, 9, and 15, Chang fails to explicitly disclose, “in the processing of determining, it is determined that the policy is appropriate in a case where an event related to the combination of feature amounts included in the policy occurs at a predetermined occurrence frequency in the past performances included in the performance information.”
However, Singh discloses, “in the processing of determining, it is determined that the policy is appropriate in a case where an event related to the combination of feature amounts included in the policy occurs at a predetermined occurrence frequency in the past performances included in the performance information” (pg.6, particularly paragraph 0064; EN: this denotes using an error measure of loss to determine the accuracy of the network and what needs to be done to improve the accuracy to an acceptable level. Here the “event” is the error rate/ with the predetermined occurrence frequency being a satisfactory rate (i.e. frequency) of error).
Chang and Singh are analogous art because both involve neural networks.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of neural networks to combine the work of Chang and Singh in order to measure the error rate of a neural network.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow the system to “determine[] an accuracy of the network as well as a degree to which the neural network needs to be adjusted to improve the accuracy” (Singh, Pg.6, paragraph 0064) or in the case of Chang, allow the system to be tested and trained to a predetermined acceptable level of accuracy as needed.
Therefore before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of neural networks to combine the work of Chang and Singh in order to measure the error rate of a neural network.
As per claims 4, 10, and 16, Chang discloses, “in the processing of listing, the combination of feature amounts are re-listed by setting, as uncontrollable…” (Pg.2-3, particularly section 3.2; EN: this denotes performing variational dropout on the features to attempt to find the best combination of features to perform the classification in comparison to other runs of different combinations of feature with the current run being the combination of features of the prediction target and the list being previous combinations, with the goal of finding a “policy” that is the best combination. As the Chang reference does not talk about any limit on the number of features to be used, the Examiner is interpreting this to be “uncontrollable” as the system does not restrict the number of features to be used).
“in the processing of creating, the policy is recreated based on a difference between the -relisted combinations of the feature amount sand the combination of the feature amounts of the prediction target” (Pg.3-4, particularly section 4.3; EN: this denotes testing the performance of the various combinations based on test set performance, which is in the past as you can’t have the score without finishing the training and receiving the outcome).
Singh discloses, “the feature amounts included in the combinations in a case where the event related to the combination of feature amounts included in the policy does not occur at the predetermined occurrence frequency in the past performances included in the performance information” (pg.6, particularly paragraph 0064; EN: this denotes using an error measure of loss to determine the accuracy of the network and what needs to be done to improve the accuracy to an acceptable level. Here the “event” is the error rate/ with the predetermined occurrence frequency being a satisfactory rate (i.e. frequency) of error).
As per claim 5, Chang discloses, “in the processing of creating, a plurality of policies is created … of achieving the target label” (Pg.2-3, particularly section 3.2; EN: this denotes performing variational dropout on the features to attempt to find the best combination of features to perform the classification in comparison to other runs of different combinations of feature with the current run being the combination of features of the prediction target and the list being previous combinations, with the goal of finding a “policy” that is the best combination. Each individual policy is an attempt to find the best policy).
“a computer is further caused to execute processing of outputting a policy determined to be appropriate among the plurality of created policies…” (Pg.3-4, particularly section 4.3; EN: this denotes testing the performance of the various combinations based on test set performance, which is in the past as you can’t have the score without finishing the training and receiving the outcome).
However, Chang fails to explicitly disclose, “with a probability” and “together with the probability.”
Singh discloses, “with a probability” and “together with the probability” (pg.6, particularly paragraph 0064; EN: this denotes using an error measure of loss to determine the accuracy of the network and what needs to be done to improve the accuracy to an acceptable level. Here the “event” is the error rate/ with the predetermined occurrence frequency being a satisfactory rate (i.e. frequency) of error).
Chang and Singh are analogous art because both involve neural networks.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of neural networks to combine the work of Chang and Singh in order to measure the error rate of a neural network.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow the system to “determine[] an accuracy of the network as well as a degree to which the neural network needs to be adjusted to improve the accuracy” (Singh, Pg.6, paragraph 0064) or in the case of Chang, allow the system to be tested and trained to a predetermined acceptable level of accuracy as needed.
Therefore before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of neural networks to combine the work of Chang and Singh in order to measure the error rate of a neural network.
As per claims 6, 12, and 18, Chang discloses, “the label is a result associated with a predetermined event of the prediction target or a target different from the prediction target” (Pg.2-3, particularly section 3.2; EN: this denotes performing variational dropout on the features to attempt to find the best combination of features to perform the classification in comparison to other runs of different combinations of feature with the current run being the combination of features of the prediction target. Here the proper classification is the “event” associated with the prediction target).
“the performance information includes at least performance information regarding the predetermined event of the prediction target or the target different from the prediction target” (Pg.3-4, particularly section 4.3; EN: this denotes testing the performance of the various combinations based on test set performance, which is in the past as you can’t have the score without finishing the training and receiving the outcome).
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEN M RIFKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at (571) 270-3428. 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.
/BEN M RIFKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123