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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 10: Ineligible.
STEP 1:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses a computer system (e.g., hardware such as processors and memories) for training an unsupervised conditional generative model. The apparatus is directed to at least a machine, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1):
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites:
a processor; and a memory operably connected to the processor to store at least one piece of code executed by the processor, wherein, when executed by the processor, the memory stores code causing the processor to:
define distributions of a plurality of components including mean vectors, respectively, and sample a latent vector from a latent distribution including the distributions of the plurality of components;
generate synthetic data using the latent vector as input of the generative model;
input the synthetic data to an encoder to acquire an encoding vector;
train the generative model and the encoder based on a value of a loss function configured to make the synthetic data closer to real data; and
redetermine parameters of the latent distribution based on the value of the loss function.
Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute mental processes. In order words, the bolded claim limitations as drafted, refer to processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the use of generic computer components.
Therefore, the bolded claim limitations fall under the abstract idea category of “Mental Processes” group in the form of “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”. (Step 2A1-Yes). See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2):
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner submits that the foregoing italicized limitation(s) constitute the additional elements.
The claim recites additional elements of a processor, and memory. The processors and memory in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors and memories performing generic computer functions. These elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)
STEP 2B:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1 recites corresponding method equivalent of claim 10. This claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claims 2 and 11 recite wherein the distributions of the components are defined as Gaussian distributions, and the latent distribution is a Gaussian mixture in which the Gaussian distributions of the respective components are synthesized.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10 above. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 10 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 recite wherein the loss function is configured so that the encoding vector is closer to a mean vector of one component among the plurality of components and farther from mean vectors of the other components; wherein the one component is determined based on responsibility with the latent vector.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10 above. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 10 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claims 5 and 14 recite wherein: the loss function is based on output of a discriminant model for the synthetic data; and the discriminant model is adversarially trained with respect to the generative model to distinguish between the real data and the synthetic data.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10 above. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 10 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 recite encoding labeled data through the encoder when the labeled data is present, wherein the loss function is configured so that the encoded labeled data is closer to a mean vector of at least one of the components and farther from mean vectors of the other components; and applying a mix-up technique for the labeled data.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10 above. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 10 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 recite wherein the parameters of the latent distribution include mixing coefficients for the plurality of component distributions; and wherein the redetermining of the parameters of the latent distribution comprises redetermining parameters for the plurality of component distributions and the mixing coefficients based on a gradient of the loss function
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10 above. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 10 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited in PTO-892 are relevant to the claimed invention but they do not, individually, or in combination teach the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691