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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/22/2023 and 09/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements mentioned above are being considered by the examiner, except for the references that have been lined through in the IDS submitted on 02/22/2023 because the applicant has not provided a translated copy of the cited references.
Specification
The specification (including the abstract and claims), and any amendments for applications, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825, must have text written plainly and legibly either by a typewriter or machine printer in a nonscript type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g., a font size of 6) in portrait orientation and presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition; and only a single column of text. See 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b).
The application papers are objected to because equations 1-14 are blurry, unclear, and difficult to read.
A legible substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) and 1.125 is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(o) because figures 6 and 7 lacks suitable descriptive legends.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “estimation unit”, and “calculation unit” in claim 13. In review of the specification, the structure of “estimation unit” is interpreted as: each of the units described above may be implemented by causing a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) to execute a computer program, that is, by software [0089], and
μ
n
f
x
=
μ
0
f
x
+
k
x
T
K
+
σ
2
I
-
1
(
y
-
m
)
, ([0054] equation 4) and
σ
n
f
(
x
)
2
=
k
x
,
x
-
k
x
T
K
+
σ
2
I
-
1
k
(
x
)
, ([0056] equation 5). Furthermore, the structure of “calculation unit” is interpreted as: each of the units described above may be implemented by causing a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) to execute a computer program, that is, by software [0089], and Robust PFn(x) =
∏
δ
∈
Δ
(
x
)
P
F
n
(
x
+
δ
)
, ([0064] equation 7).
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, claim 1 recites the limitations of: “based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimate a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value”. Claim 14 recites similar limitations of: “based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimating a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value”. Claim 15 recites similar limitations of: “based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimating a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value”. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to be understood as both the first estimation value and the first estimation error are based on the constraint function value, or if it is meant to be understood as only the first estimation value is based on the constraint function value. Furthermore, it is unclear if both the first estimation value and the first estimation error are of the constraint function value, or if only the first estimation value is of the constraint function value, or if only the first estimation error is of the constraint function value. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitations to mean that both the first estimation value and the first estimation error are of the constraint function value, as well as both the first estimation value and the first estimation error are based on the constraint function value.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation of: “the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy”. Claim 14 recites a similar limitation of: “the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy”. Claim 15 recites a similar limitation of: “the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy”. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to be understood as the third set values do satisfy, or if the limitation is meant to be understood as the third set values may or may not satisfy. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that when inputting a plurality of third set values it does satisfy.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation of: “the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing the one or more second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values”. Claim 14 recites similar limitations of: “the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values”. Claim 15 recites similar limitations of: “the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values”. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to be understood as the changing the one or more second set values in a neighborhood range is determined in advanced, or if simply the neighborhood range is determined in advance. Furthermore, it is unclear if the changing the one or more second set values in a neighborhood range is based on the one or more second set values, or if the limitation is meant to be understood as there is a neighborhood range that is determined in advance, the neighborhood range itself is based on the one or more second set values, and the third set values are obtained by changing the one or more neighborhood range values. Furthermore, the limitation is unclear the neighborhood range is merely based on the one or more second set values, or if the neighborhood range of values are a range of values which include the one or more second set values and are also based on the one or more second set values. Furthermore, it is unclear if the third set values are the entire neighborhood range of values after changing the one or more second set values in the neighborhood range of values, or if the third set values are meant to be understood as only the changed one or more second set values in the neighborhood range of values. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation is meant to be understood as the neighborhood range itself is changed or if it is meant to be understood as it is merely taking values from the neighborhood range and changing them to form third set values while the neighborhood range itself remains the same range without change. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that there is a neighborhood range of values based on the one or more second set values and includes the one or more second set values, wherein the third set values are the result of a calculation using the one or more second set values.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitations of: “a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters”, and “based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculate a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy”. Claim 14 recites similar limitations of: “based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculating a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that the one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy”. Claim 15 recites similar limitations of: “based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculating a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that the one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy”. It is unclear if the limitation of “when inputting a plurality of third set values” is meant to be understood as inputting a third set of values as the one or more parameters for the constraint function, or if the third set values are input into the probability calculation, or if the third set values are input into some other function. Furthermore, it is unclear if the probability is meant to be understood as being a probability that one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint, or if it is meant to be understood as a probability that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy, or if it is meant to be both in some manner. In view of the applicant’s specification, paragraph [0058] describes the robust satisfaction probability as representing the probability that each parameter satisfies the robust constraint based on the estimation value and the estimation error of the constraint function value. Paragraph [0064] gives the equation for the robust satisfaction probability Robust PFn(x) =
∏
δ
∈
Δ
(
x
)
P
F
n
(
x
+
δ
)
. Paragraph [0063] refers to ‘x’ as the second set values, and
x
+
δ
as third set values. Paragraph [0028] states “considered is a robust constraint in which c(x+δ) always satisfies the condition for the constraint function value (equal to or smaller than the threshold”. Paragraph [0092] talks about the evaluation device calculates the constraint function value based on the result of the experiment based on the recommended set value. In view of the applicant’s specification, for purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation “based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculate a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy”, to mean, calculate a robust satisfaction probability based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, wherein the robust satisfaction probability represents a probability that one or more second set values input as the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value satisfies, wherein a plurality of third set values are used in the calculation of the robust satisfaction probability.
Claims 2-13 inherit the same deficiencies as claim 1 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitations of: “when the first set value is input”. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation of, “one or more first set values are input”. It is unclear if the limitation of claim 4 is meant to be referring to only one of the one or more first set values input, or if the limitation is meant to be referring to all of the one or more first set values input, or if the limitation of claim 4 is meant to limit the limitation of claim 1 to be only one value of the first set of values is input.
Furthermore, claim 4 recites the limitation of: “a recommended value that is a set value”. It is unclear if the “a set value” is meant to be referring to any of the first set, the second set, or the third set values, or another set value or set of values entirely.
Claims 5-10 inherit the same deficiencies as claim 4 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitations of: “the second estimation value of which is smaller than second estimation values of other set values among set values within a setting range representing a range that the set value is able to take”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “second estimation values” (plural second set values), and “other set values” this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if “set values” are referring to any of the first set, the second set, or the third set values, or another set value or set of values entirely. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the set value” is referring to any of the first set, the second set, or the third set values, or another set value or set of values entirely. Furthermore, the limitation of, “a range that the set value is able to take” is unclear. A range, in mathematics, may mean the difference between a highest and lowest value1. It is unclear if “a range that the set value is able to take” is meant to be understood as the set value is taking the difference between some minimum and maximum value, or if “a range that the set value is able to take” is meant to be understood as a range the set value falls in.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitations of: “a set value with which an output of the second acquisition function becomes optimum within a setting range representing a range that the set value is able to take”. It is unclear if “set values” are referring to any of the first set, the second set, or the third set values, or another set value or set of values entirely. Furthermore, the limitation of “a range that the set value is able to take” is unclear. A range, in mathematics, may mean the difference between a highest and lowest value2. It is unclear if “a range that the set value is able to take” is meant to be understood as the set value is taking the difference between some minimum and maximum value, or if “a range that the set value is able to take” is meant to be understood as a range the set value falls in.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitations of: “a plurality of set values”. It is unclear if “a plurality of set values” is referring to any of the first set, the second set, or the third set values, or another set value entirely or set of values entirely.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites the limitation of: “the determined recommended value”. It is unclear if the limitation is referring to the recommended value of claim 4, or the new recommended value of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation of: “a set value”. It is unclear if “a plurality of set values” is referring to any of the first set, the second set, or the third set values, or another set value entirely or set of values entirely.
Furthermore, claim 8 recites the limitation of: “the determined recommended value”. It is unclear if the limitation is referring to the recommended value of claim 4, or the new recommended value of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation of: “a first set value”. It is unclear if “a first set value” is referring to the first set values of claim 1, or if “a first set value” is meant to be understood as any first value of a set of values, wherein the set of values may be the first set, the second set, or the third set.
Claim 10 inherits the same deficiency as claim 9 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation of: “a candidate set value”. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to be referring to the first mentioned candidate set value of claim 9, the “another candidate set value” of claim 9, or if the candidate set value of claim 10 is another candidate set value entirely.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitations of: “a relation between set values of the one or more parameters and the robust satisfaction probability”. It is unclear if “set values” is referring to any first value of a set of values, wherein the set of values may be the first set, the second set, or the third set.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, including mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following, mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“An information configured to: based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimate a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value; and based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculate a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy, the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing the one or more second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “processing device”, and “one or more hardware processors”. The additional elements of “processing device”, and “one or more hardware processors” are generically recited as a generic computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reasons claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of “processing device”, and “one or more hardware processors” are merely describing a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding limitations the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. For these reasons, claim 1 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“obtain a relational expression for calculating a satisfaction probability representing a probability of satisfying a condition for the constraint function value; calculate satisfaction probabilities using the relational expression, for the plurality of third set values; and calculate the robust satisfaction probability using the satisfaction probabilities calculated for the plurality of third set values.”
Claim 2 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 2 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2. Claim 3 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 2.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 3 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 3 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“calculate, as the robust satisfaction probability, a product of the satisfaction probabilities calculated for the plurality of third set values.”
Claim 3 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 3 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2. Claim 4 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 2.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 4 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 4 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“based on an objective function value that is an output of an objective function when the first set value is input, estimate a second estimation value and a second estimation error of the objective function value; and determine a recommended value that is a set value to be recommended based on the robust satisfaction probability, the second estimation value, and the second estimation error.”
Claim 4 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 4 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 5 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 4.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 5 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“determine, to be the recommended value, a set value the robust satisfaction probability of which is equal to or larger than a threshold and the second estimation value of which is smaller than second estimation values of other set values among set values within a setting range representing a range that the set value is able to take.”
Claim 5 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 5 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 6 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 4.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 6 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“calculate a first acquisition function based on the second estimation value and the second estimation error; calculate a second acquisition function that is a product of the robust satisfaction probability and the first acquisition function; and determine, to be the recommended value, a set value with which an output of the second acquisition function becomes optimum within a setting range representing a range that the set value is able to take.”
Claim 6 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 6 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 7 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 4.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 7 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 7 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“determine, to be new recommended values, a plurality of set values that are selected or retrieved within the neighborhood range based on the determined recommended value.”
Claim 7 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 7 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 8 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 4.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 8 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 8 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“determine, to be a new recommended value, a set value with which a satisfaction probability representing a probability of satisfying a condition for the constraint function value becomes minimum within the neighborhood range based on the determined recommended value.”
Claim 8 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 8 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 9 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 4.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 9 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 9 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“determine, to be an optimum value representing an optimum set value, a candidate set value the robust satisfaction probability of which is equal to or larger than a threshold and the objective function value of which is smaller or larger than the objective function value of another candidate set value among a plurality of recommended values determined for a plurality of constraint function values and a plurality of objective function values that are outputs of an objective function when a first set value is input.”
Claim 9 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 9 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 9. Claim 10 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 9.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 10 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“determine, to be the optimum value, a candidate set value the robust satisfaction probability of which is equal to or larger than a threshold and the objective function value of which becomes minimum or maximum among the plurality of recommended values determined for the plurality of constraint function values and the plurality of objective function values.”
Claim 10 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 10 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 11 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 4.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 11 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 11 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“the robust satisfaction probability.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 11 recites the further additional element of, “configured to output”. The additional element of “configured to output” is insignificant extra-solution activity regarding mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(g). For these reasons claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional element of “configured to output” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) regarding transmitting/receiving data over a network. For these reasons, claim 11 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 11. Claim 12 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 11.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 12 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 12 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“output information indicating a relation between set values of the one or more parameters and the robust satisfaction probability.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 12 recites the further additional element of, “output information”. The additional element of “output information” is insignificant extra-solution activity regarding mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(g). For these reasons claim 12 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional element of “output information” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) regarding transmitting/receiving data over a network. For these reasons, claim 12 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 13 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 4.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 13 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 13 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“implement: an estimation unit configured to estimate the first estimation value and the first estimation error; and a calculation unit configured to calculate the robust satisfaction probability.”
Claim 13 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 13 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 14 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 14 recites an abstract idea, including mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 14 recites the following, mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“An information processing method, the information processing method comprising: based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimating a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value; and based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculating a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that the one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy, the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 14 recites the additional element of, “executed by an information processing device”. The additional element of “executed by an information processing device” is generically recited as a generic computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reasons claim 14 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional element of “executed by an information processing device” is merely describing a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding limitations the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. For these reasons, claim 14 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 15, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 15 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 15 recites an abstract idea, including mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 15 recites the following, mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
“based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimating a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value; and based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculating a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that the one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy, the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 15 recites the additional elements of, “computer program product”, “computer-readable medium”, “programmed instructions”, “instructions causing a computer to execute”. The additional elements of “executed by an information processing device” are generically recited as a generic computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reasons claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of “computer program product”, “computer-readable medium”, “programmed instructions”, “instructions causing a computer to execute” are merely describing a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding limitations the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. For these reasons, claim 15 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 1, the applicant claims an information processing device comprising one or more hardware processors configured to:
based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimate a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value; and based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculate a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy, the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing the one or more second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
With regards to claim 14, the applicant claims an information processing method executed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising:
based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimating a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value; and based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculating a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that the one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy, the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
With regards to claim 15, the applicant claims a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium including programmed instructions, the instructions causing a computer to execute:
based on a constraint function value that is an output of a constraint function when one or more first set values are input for one or more parameters, estimating a first estimation value and a first estimation error of the constraint function value; and based on the first estimation value and the first estimation error, calculating a robust satisfaction probability representing a probability that the one or more second set values for the one or more parameters satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value when inputting a plurality of third set values should satisfy, the plurality of third set values being obtained by changing second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Berkenkamp et al. (Berkenkamp, F., Schoellig, A. P., & Krause, A. (2017, August 16). Safe controller optimization for quadrotors with Gaussian Processes. arXiv.org. arxiv.org/abs/1509.01066), hereinafter, “Berkenkamp”, discloses a Bayesian optimization based algorithm, where it only evaluates parameters that achieve a safe performance threshold with high probability (pg. 2 column 1 paragraph 1). Berkenkamp further discloses, maximizing an unknown function by modeling it as a Gaussian process over a finite set of parameters, optimizing the underlying function to a safe set which only contains parameters that lead to performance above the safe threshold (pg. 3 column 1 paragraph 8 – column 2 paragraph 1). However, Berkenkamp fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above. Berkenkamp discloses that the safe set is not preselected, and does not teach or suggest finding the probability that a second set of values satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value satisfies using a third set of values obtained by changing one or more second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values.
Sugai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/067224 A1), hereinafter, “Sugai”, discloses an algorithm for optimization (Fig. 4). Sugai further discloses outputting predicted values and predicted errors for performance of the parameters in the optimization algorithm ([0052]). Sugai further discloses determining the probability of multiple performance executable region (Fig. 3; [0056]). Sugai further discloses a predetermined threshold value which variance values are compared against, and if the variance values are less than or equal to the threshold (as a range), dimension compression is carried out by eliminating the variables dimensions for which the variances have been computed (Fig. 4; [0069]). However, Sugai fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above. Sugai fails to teach or suggest finding the probability that a second set of values satisfy a robust constraint that the constraint function value satisfies using a third set of values obtained by changing one or more second set values in a neighborhood range determined in advance based on the one or more second set values.
Gelbart et al. (Gelbart, M., Snoek, J., P. Adams, R., Bakshy, E. School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University (2014, March 22). Bayesian Optimization with Unknown Constraints. arXiv.org. arxiv.org/pdf/1403.5607), hereinafter, “Gelbart”, discloses Bayesian optimization in which at each iteration a posterior distribution (probability) is computed by conditioning previous evaluations of the objective function (pg. 2 section 1.1). Gelbert further discloses that the algorithm is made to find a feasible region that the constraint is satisfied in (pg. 7 section 3.2). However, Gelbart fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 3:30pm ET.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at 571-272-3702. 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.
/J.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2182
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
1 The range (statistics). (2021). web.archive.org/web/20210816093052/https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/range.html
Regarding range
2 The range (statistics). (2021). web.archive.org/web/20210816093052/https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/range.html
Regarding range
