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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation the training data that are determined with a scenario other than a real operation on the 5th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because no such training data has previously been described. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if it had read providing
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of a parent claim.
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a) Claim 7 merely recites a device, whose broadest reasonable interpretation includes embodiments such as a transitory signal, i.e. signals per se; and b) Claim 8 recites a computer program product whose broadest reasonable interpretation includes software per se. Neither signals per se nor software per se fall into any of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, Claim 1 further recites the steps of defining a data point determined from input variables (a mental process); splitting the training data into training data points and validation data points (a mental process); determining a k-Nearest Neighbor tree from the training data points (a mental process); determining a first distribution of distance values of distances between each of the validation data points and a predetermined number of next training data points of the training data points (a mental process and a mathematical process of determining distances); determining a second distribution of distance values of distances between each of the operational data points and the predetermined number of next training data points(a mental process and a mathematical process of determining distances); determining a distance dimension between the first and the second distribution of the distance values(a mental process); adding further training data to the training data depending on the distance dimension (a mental process of assigning data to a set). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea of determining further data to add to a set based on distances of data points in other constructed sets of data.
The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the only additional elements recited in the claim are providing training data that are determined with a scenario other than a real operation of the technical system, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and capturing operational data points determined from the input variables in a real-world operation of the technical system, which is also insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, both necessary for all uses of the abstract idea. Insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering does not make use of or apply the abstract idea, and thus (by MPEP 2106.05(g)) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of determining further data to add to a set based on distances of data points in other constructed sets of data.
Finally, the claim does not recite any additional elements, either alone or in combination, which could provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the two methods of data gathering of training data recited (i.e. through simulation/other than a real operation) and through operation of the system (in a real world operation) are well-understood, routine, and conventional methods of gathering training data for a system. This is evidenced by [0005] of the instance specification, which says that simulations are often carried out to get training data when sufficient training data cannot be collected via real operation. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 2, dependent upon Claim 1, only additional clarifies that training data can be determined via simulation, which is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which has already been shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (instant specification, [0005]).
Claim 3, dependent upon Claim 1, recites an additional abstract idea step of a mathematical calculation (a Euclidean distance is determined), but no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Similarly, Claims 5 and 6 only recite additional mental process steps (additional distance dimensions are determined; further training data is determined; the method is repeated; and the determining is repeated) but no additional elements.
Claim 4, dependent upon Claim 1, only narrows the data being used in the abstract idea (the input variables comprise specific kinds of data), which by MPEP 2106.05(h) only specifies a field of use, which cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 7-9 only recite generic computer components on which to execute the abstract idea, which by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), using a computer or other machinery to perform an abstract idea, neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heinrich, US PG Pub 2023/0059924.
Claim 7 recites a device for carrying out the method according to Claim 1, which is an intended use of a device and thus whose scope includes any device capable of being used for carrying out the method according to Claim 1, (see MPEP 2111.02). Therefore, any computer processor falls within the scope of the claims. As Heinrich recites such a processor (Heinrich, [0001], “processors or computing resources used to select training data to train one or more neural networks”), Heinrich anticipates Claim 7.
Conclusion
The independent claim has been searched, but no combination or prior art which teaches or renders obvious the recited combination of limitations has been uncovered. Thus, Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are not rejected with respect to prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Heinrich et al., US PG Pub 2023/0059924, teaches different methods of adding new training data to a training set, including by real operation of the system and by simulation. Heinrich also teaches distances between data scenes, but not in the matter recited by the claim language.
Poyiadzi et al., “FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanations” also selects new data points from a divided set of data points based on the distances between the further next training data points, but not the distances or dimensions as recited by the claims.
Cherti et al., “Out-of-class novelty generation: an experimental foundation” also recites methods of generating additional training data, solving a similar problem as the claimed invention, but using a different method.
Knobloch et al., US PG Pub 2023/0196193, teaches methods of adding new training data to a training set, including by real operation of the system and by simulation, but does not teach the claimed method involving distributions of distances between sets of points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M SMITH whose telephone number is (469)295-9104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm Pacific.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122