DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 15 June 2023, claiming benefit back to 22 June 2022.
Claims 1 – 14 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 15 June 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 12 recites the limitations of:
executing movement processing of moving a sample, among a plurality of samples included in a target sample group, having an output error of a (t+1)-th order machine learning model with respect to observation data at time t+1 (t is a natural number) being larger than a predetermined amount, from the target sample group to a source sample group;
generating a plurality of weak learners by using at least observation data from time t to time T of at least one sample included in the target sample group after the movement processing and at least one sample included in the source sample group after the movement processing – FIG 6 and ; and
generating a t-th order machine learning model, based on at least each of the plurality of generated weak learners, and a classification error being evaluated, for each of the plurality of generated weak learners, by using observation data at time t of the at least one sample included in the target sample group after the movement processing, wherein
the observation data include at least a state and an action of a sample at a specific time until time T, and
the t-th order machine learning model outputs an action at time t by using at least a state at time t as an input.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mathematical algorithms and calculations. The movement processing, generation of weak learners, and the generating of a t-th order machine learning model are all mathematical calculations (see, e.g., Applicant’s disclosure, FIG. 18 and pages 6 – 8, Mathematical 1; page 10, lines 5 – 13, lines 27 – 32, page 11, lines 1 – 6; pages 14 – 16, Mathematical 2, Mathematical 3, Mathematical 4, Mathematical 5, Mathematical 6, Mathematical 7, Mathematical 8, and Mathematical 9). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While independent claim 12 does not recite any additional elements other than the judicial exception, independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of at least one memory and at least one processor, however these are recited at a high level of generality, the computer is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 13 recites the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer readable medium, however this amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to dependent claims 2 – 11 and 14;
Claim 2 merely further describes the judicial exception, in this case moving samples from one group to another;
Claims 3 – 6 merely further describe the judicial exception, in this case the generation of weak learners by using weights;
Claim 7 merely describes the data used in the mathematical calculations;
Claim 8 merely further describes the judicial exception;
Claim 9 merely further describes the judicial exception, in this case changing a reduction amount;
Claim 10 merely further describes the judicial exception, in this case an additional mathematical calculation;
Claim 11 merely further describes the judicial exception, in this case an additional mathematical calculations;
Claim 14 merely describes the meaning of the variables output by a model.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry1 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., pages 26 – 28, provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation2.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Htike, Kyaw Kyaw. "Efficient determination of the number of weak learners in AdaBoost." Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 29.5 (2017): 967-982.
Abe; Naoki et al. US 20100042561 A1 Methods And Systems For Cost-Sensitive Boosting
Skogstad; Daniel Sadeghi US 20220327422 A1 System And Method For Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Situation Determination Based On Distributed Device Event Data
Kim; Yongjune et al. US 20210073036 A1 Computational Resource Allocation In Ensemble Machine Learning Systems
Movellan, Javier R. et al. US 20050102246 A1 Weak hypothesis generation apparatus and method, learning apparatus and method, detection apparatus and method, facial expression learning apparatus and method, facial expression recognition apparatus and method, and robot apparatus
Sato Yosuke JP 2022135733 A System, Device, And Method For Managing Progress And Program
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
2 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).