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 § 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 – 20 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 to claim 1, the phrase "based on at least some" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner will interpret the limitation as “at least one of.”
Claims 2 – 7 depend on claim 1, therefore the claims are also rejected.
As to claim 8, the phrase "based on at least some" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner will interpret the limitation as “at least one of.”
Claims 9 – 14 depend on claim 8, therefore the claims are also rejected.
As to claim 15, the phrase "based on at least some" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner will interpret the limitation as “at least one of.”
Claims 16 - 20 depend on claim 15, therefore the claims are also rejected.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
Claims 1 – 7 and 15 - 20 are directed to a method (claims 1-7) and system (claims 15 - 20 ). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 8 - 14 recites a “machine-readable medium” that has information recorded for performing a function (estimating quantiles). The Specification fails to expressly limit the recited “medium’ to a statutory embodiment. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the recited "medium" includes signals, electromagnetic waves, carrier waves, etc. Accordingly, the recited “machine-readable medium” are not a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter, and claims 8 - 14 fail to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
generating the one or more quantile estimates from the sample with a probability estimated to represent a confidence in that the one or more quantile estimates are indicative of corresponding quantiles by rank in the full data set within the accuracy range;
producing a decision based on at least some of the one or more quantile estimates, the accuracy range, and the confidence.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, generating an estimate is a mental process that involves various cognitive functions like reasoning, memory, prediction, and using prior experiences to form a reasonable approximation when exact data isn't available. Additionally, producing a decision is a mental process that involves simply making an informed choice.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving a sample of a first size with a plurality of items sampled from a full data set of a second size
receiving an input specifying one or more quantile estimates to be determined from the sample, wherein the one or more quantile estimates from the sample are indicative of corresponding quantiles by rank in the full data set within an accuracy range;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites at least one processor, a memory and a communication platform which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of quantile estimates amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
receiving a sample of a first size with a plurality of items sampled from a full data set of a second size
receiving an input specifying one or more quantile estimates to be determined from the sample, wherein the one or more quantile estimates from the sample are indicative of corresponding quantiles by rank in the full data set within an accuracy range;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The at least one processor, a memory and a communication platform which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of quantile estimates amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
sorting the plurality of items in the sample to create an ordered list of items;
generating paired conditions for each quantile of the one or more quantile estimates, wherein the paired conditions are directed to subranges of samples by rank in the full data set contributing to subranges of items in the ordered list of items;
computing the probability that the one or more quantile estimates satisfy the accuracy range based on the paired conditions of the one or more quantile estimates,
wherein the subranges of the samples by rank in the full data set in the paired conditions for each quantile are determined based on the quantile, the second size, and the accuracy range, and
the subranges of items in the ordered list in the paired conditions for each quantile are determined based on the first size, the quantile, and the accuracy range.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, sorting and pairing are fundamental mental processes that involve observing, comparing, identifying attributes, and categorizing information to organized data. Additionally, computing the probability refers to how the brain makes estimations about uncertain outcomes.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Sorting” and “computing” can be performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the probability is determined based on a plurality of successive hypergeometric probabilities; and
the hypergeometric probabilities are computed via recurrence obtained based on the paired conditions of the one or more quantile estimates.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula, or algorithm, which is identified as an abstract idea. Specifically, the recited “determined” involves a mathematical formula which simply performs a calculation on values, which is considered a data processing step that can be performed with a generic computer. Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. The recited steps are performed on a generic processor and do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract mathematical operations involved in computing the hypergeometric probabilities.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Determined” and “computed” can be performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
The recitation of hypergeometric probabilities and recurrence amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
The recitation of hypergeometric probabilities and recurrence amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the recurrence is determined based on dynamic programming
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Dynamic Programming (DP) is mental process for problem-solving, involving breaking down complex problems into simpler subproblems, solving each once, to build to the final answer.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Determined” can be performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
The recitation of dynamic programming amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
The recitation of dynamic programming amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the first size associated with the sample is determined based on a desired confidence level
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Further, this is simply a mental process where the initial sample size in an analysis is determined by the desired confidence level.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Determined” can be performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the first size associated with the sample is determined based on a desired confidence level
wherein the first size is optimized with respect to a desired confidence level by:
determining an initial first size as a current sample size;
sampling the full data set to generate a current sample of the current sample size;
estimating the one or more quantile estimates from the current sample with a probability representing a current estimated confidence in that the one or more quantile estimates from the current sample are indicative of corresponding quantiles by rank in the full data set within the accuracy range; and
comparing the desired confidence level and the current estimated confidence to determine
whether the current sample size corresponds to an optimized sample size in accordance with a pre-determined sample size search scheme.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Humans have been determining, estimating, sampling, and comparing before computers where even invented.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Determining,” “sampling,” “estimating,” and “comparing.” can be performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
The recitation of sample size search scheme to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
The recitation of sample size search scheme amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
outputting the current sample size as the first size if the current sample size corresponds to an optimized sample size according to some criterion associated with the pre-determined sample size search scheme;
updating the current sample size according to the sample size search scheme if the current
sample size does not correspond to the optimal sample size;
repeating the steps of sampling, estimating, comparing, outputting, and updating until the
pre-determined sample search scheme yields the optimal sample size.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Humans have been determining, estimating, sampling, and comparing before computers where even invented.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Determining,” “sampling,” “estimating,” and “comparing.” can be performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim further recites a machine-readable medium which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim further recites a system, a quantile estimate generator, a processor, and a quantile-based decision determiner which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosking et al (US 2010/0114526) in view of Greifeneder et al (US 2015/0032752).
As to claim 1, Hosking et al teaches a method implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform for estimating quantiles (paragraph [0061]the CPUs 1611 are interconnected via a system bus 1612 to a random access memory (RAM) 1614, read-only memory (ROM) 1616,), comprising:
receiving a sample of a first size with a plurality of items sampled from a full data set of a second size (paragraph [0010]…receiving a complete data set ; paragraph [0034]…a subsample refers to a subset of a complete data sample ; Examiner’s Note: “subsample” reads on “sample of a first size” ; “complete data sample” reads on “a full data set of a second size”);
receiving an input specifying one or more quantile estimates to be determined from the sample, wherein the one or more quantile estimates from the sample are indicative of corresponding quantiles by rank in the full data set within an accuracy range (paragraph [0010]…receiving a specific exceedance probability ; paragraph [0017]… computing a quantile estimate based on the optimal subsample and the specified exceedance probability, the quantile estimate indicating the magnitude of the extremely rare events ; paragraph [0034]… fitting a distribution to "m" largest historical events, for a range of values of m, and designating one of these sets of m historical events as "optimal". In one approach, there is considered a bias-variance tradeoff occurring when choosing the optimal value. ; Examiner’s Note: “a specific exceedance probability” reads on “input specifying” ; “m largest historical events” reads on “rank” ; “range of values” reads on “accuracy range”);
generating the one or more quantile estimates from the sample with a probability in that the one or more quantile estimates are indicative of corresponding quantiles by rank in the full data set within the accuracy range (paragraph [0052]…the system computes a quantile estimate for the optimal subsample. In this invention, the quantile estimate is equivalent to a frequency of rare events in the optimal subsample or the distribution. In one embodiment, the system computes the quantile estimate based on the optimal subsample and a specific exceedance probability, which is provided as an input or is predetermined before executing the steps 100-160 in FIG. 1.; Examiner’s Note: “frequency of rare events in the optimal subsample or the distribution” reads on “probability” ; “confidence intervals” reads on “confidence” );
Hosking et al fails to explicitly show/teach the one or more quantile estimates from the sample with a probability estimated to represent a confidence; and producing a decision based on at least some of the one or more quantile estimates, the accuracy range, and the confidence.
However, Greifeneder et al teaches one or more quantile estimates from the sample with a probability estimated to represent a confidence (paragraph [0142]… calculating a confidence interval for the estimated current quantile, defining a range in which the real current quantile lies with a specific, defined probability (e.g. 99%). The size of the confidence interval depends on the number of samples 805 of current and baseline distribution, and the desired confidence (probability that the real value lies within the interval). In case the expected baseline quantile value lies outside of the confidence interval of the current quantile value, a significant deviation was detected and the process continues with step 1707.); and producing a decision based on at least some of the one or more quantile estimates, the accuracy range, and the confidence (paragraph [0143]…Step 1707 creates a statistical statement record indicating a deviation between baseline and current distribution. In case the higher bound of the confidence interval of the current quantile is lower than the baseline quantile with applied tolerance, the current quantile value is below the baseline with applied tolerance with required statistical certainty, and a statistical statement 901 indicating a normal performance behavior is created. In case the lower bound of the confidence interval of the current quantile is higher than the baseline quantile value with applied tolerance, the current quantile is higher than the baseline with required statistical certainty, and a statistical statement record indicating abnormal, degraded performance behavior is created ; Examiner’s Note: “a statistical statement record indicating abnormal, degraded performance behavior” reads on “producing a decision”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the are as claimed for Hosking et al to have the one or more quantile estimates from the sample with a probability estimated to represent a confidence; and producing a decision based on at least some of the one or more quantile estimates, the accuracy range, and the confidence, as in Greifeneder et al, for the purpose of indicating abnormal, degraded performance behavior is created with precise accuracy.
As to claim 5, Greifeneder et al teaches wherein the first size associated with the sample is determined based on a desired confidence level (paragraph [0142]… The size of the confidence interval depends on the number of samples 805 of current and baseline distribution, and the desired confidence (probability that the real value lies within the interval)).
It would have been obvious for the first size associated with the sample is determined based on a desired confidence level, for the same reasons as above.
Claim 8 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589]. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128