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 .
Priority
Applicant claims benefit of prior filed German Patent Application No. 20 2022 104 805.3, filed August 25, 2022, that is acknowledged by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/06/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims include numbers in parenthesis that make the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill is unable to determine the intended scope of the claimed invention. Specially, the information associated with the numbers or intended to be interpreted by the notation is unclear in the claim limitation. Thus, the claims are rendered indefinite. Examiner suggests that the numbers in parenthesis be removed or replaced with words that express clearly the intended claim limitations.
Examiner interprets the notation broadly as non-limiting and gives them no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the data (9, 10) of one said data pair (8) differ by a detector-specific transformation (11) that is uniform for all said data pairs (8)” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how one ascertains the intended scope. Specifically, how can one quantify or measure or detect the claimed difference. Does a “data pair (8) differ by a detector-specific transformation (11) that is uniform for all said data pairs” mean that there is no difference given that all the pairs are uniform? How does a function/feature/detection remains uniform and yet different, as claimed? The specification, appears to mirror the claim language and thus the specification provides no insight regarding how the limitations should be interpreted. Examiner interprets any data pair for training a neural network as within the scope of the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding the dependent claims that depend on claims 1 and 11 respectively, the claims fail to resolve the noted issue and are rejected for the noted rationale above.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “generating the second datum at least using a convolution (12) of the first datum (9) with a lateral response function (13)” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear making one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the intended scope. Specifically, the convolution is a mathematical process for combining mathematical operations usually a input kernel and a weight kernel by sliding them over each other and multiplying the function values, (e.g. generally the known operations associated with a convolutional neural network) it is unclear what is meant by “using a convolution (12) of the first datum (9) with a lateral response function” such that resulting data pair meets the unclear requirement noted in claim 1 limitation, from which claim 2 depends, “wherein the synthetic data pairs (8) comprise a first datum (9) and a second datum (10) and the data (9, 10) of one said data pair (8) differ by a detector-specific transformation (11) that is uniform for all said data pairs (8)]”. Thus, the claim is indefinite. Examiner interprets any data set with the scope of the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation recited limitations for generating the first datum (i.e. generating the first datum (9) using a convolution (14) of a synthetic rough profile (15) with a mapping function (16)) and again it is unclear how the limitation fails within the scope of the limitation noted in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, “wherein the synthetic data pairs (8) comprise a first datum (9) and a second datum (10) and the data (9, 10) of one said data pair (8) differ by a detector-specific transformation (11) that is uniform for all said data pairs (8)]”. Thus, the claim is indefinite. Examiner interprets any data set with the scope of the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “further comprising using a plurality of at least one of a) said synthetic rough profiles (15), b) said first data (9), or said second data (10) within a single data set for training the artificial neural network (4)” includes the terms in “b) said first data (9), or said second data (10)” and “synthetic rough profiles” that lack antecedent basis. There is no recitation of a first or a second data. Being the data and profiles are plural forms and the prior stated first and second datum and synthetic rough profile do not serve as sufficient antecedent basis. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes that any data for training the neural network is within the scope of the claim limitation.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 8-9 the term “synthetic rough profile” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the term refers to and the specification appears to mirror claim language. The term is not a term of art in computer science and interpretation is unclear are recited in the claimed invention or specification. The claims are rendered indefinite. The examiner notes that any data is within the scope of the claimed term.
Regarding claims 11-20 the clams recite similar limitations as claims 1-10, and are rejected under the same rationale.
The examiners notes that dependent claims of noted claims are also rejected. The applicant should review the claims for further issues as the examiner has attempted to cover most of the issues with the claimed invention.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 11-20 ,the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the preamble is noted as a “detection arrangement” which is not considered a system, method, or artificial of manufacturer. Specifically, the claimed inventions appears to directed to a category that is denoted in MPEP 2106.03, that enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The claimed detector and units are not sufficient to determine the intended statutory category as enumerated in MPEP 2106.03.
Regarding claims 22,the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the preamble is noted as a “a phantom comprising the detection arrangement” which is not considered a system, method, or artificial of manufacturer. Specifically, the claimed inventions appears to directed to a category that is denoted in MPEP 2106.03, that enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The claimed detector and units are not sufficient to determine the intended statutory category as enumerated in MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 1: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
detecting a result (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
… using a detector (2); initially training the artificial neural network (4) with synthetic data pairs (8),... (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
… wherein the synthetic data pairs (8) comprise a first datum (9) and a second datum (10); and the data (9, 10) of one said data pair (8) differ by a detector-specific transformation (11) that is uniform for all said data pairs (8). Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea recited in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising generating the second datum at least using a convolution (12) of the first datum (9) with a lateral response function (13). (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements considered mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
generating the first datum (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising generating the first datum (9) using a convolution (14) of a synthetic rough profile (15) with a mapping function (16). (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein at least one of a) at least one of the lateral response function (13) or the mapping function (16) are distribution functions, or b) the synthetic rough profile (15) is a piecemeal linear function. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein at least one of the synthetic rough profile (15), the mapping function (16), or the first datum (9) is randomly generated, with at least individual parameters of the at least one of the rough profile (15), the mapping function (16), or the first datum (9) being randomly selected. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea in claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising using a plurality of at least one of a) said synthetic rough profiles (15), b) said first data (9), or said second data (10) within a single data set for training the artificial neural network (4). (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
… first learnable parameter associated with the first neural network …(Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the at least one of the lateral response function (13) or the mapping function (16) are distribution functions, and standard deviations of the distribution functions that are restricted to at least one of fixed values or ranges of values. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising furnishing at least one of the synthetic rough profile (15), the first datum (9), or the second datum (10) with randomly generated noise that is greater than an expected noise for the detected results (5) to be corrected. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising recalculating at least one of the synthetic rough profile (15), the first datum (9), or the second datum (10) locally at a changed resolution by at least one of a sampling-rate conversion or downsampling. (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
further comprising correcting the detected result (5) in a region of a penumbra of a beam profile. (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
… detected result (5) in a region of a penumbra of a beam profile.. (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
…correct a result (5), detected (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
a detector (2); an arithmetic logic unit (3) with an artificial neural network (4), the artificial neural network (4) being configured to … using a detector... (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
… using the detector (2), of a radiation-physics process pertaining to a radiation-source (6); wherein the artificial neural network (4) is initially trained with synthetic data pairs (8), the data pairs (8) comprising a first datum (9) and a second datum (10), and the data (9, 10) of one said data pair (8) differ by a detector-specific transformation (11) that is uniform for all said data pairs (8). Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the arrangement is configured such that the second datum (10) has been generated at least using a convolution (12) of the first datum (9) with a lateral response function (13). (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 12.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the arrangement is configured such that the first datum (9) has been generated using a convolution (14) of a synthetic rough profile (15) with a mapping function (16).. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 13.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the arrangement is configured such that at least one of a) at least one of the lateral response function (13) or the mapping function (16) are distribution functions, or b) the synthetic rough profile (15) is a piecemeal linear function. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 14.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the arrangement is configured such that at least one of the synthetic rough profile (15), the mapping function (16), or the first datum (9) was randomly generated, and at least individual parameters of at least one of the rough profile (15), the mapping function (16), or of the first datum (9) were randomly selected within a respective specified parameter range.. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 14.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the arrangement is configured with at least one of a plurality of synthetic rough profiles (15), said first data (9), or second data (10) stored within a single data set for training the artificial neural network (4). (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 14.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the arrangement is configured such that standard deviations of the distribution functions have been restricted to at least one of fixed values or ranges of values. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea noted in claim 14.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the arrangement is configured such that at least one of the synthetic rough profile (15), the first datum (9), of the second datum (10) has been furnished with randomly generated noise that is greater than to be expected for the detected results (5) to be corrected. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19: Does claim fall within a statutory category? No, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim