DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: Original claims filed 07/27/23. This action is made non-final.
3. Claims 11-20 are pending in the case. Claims 11, 19 and 25 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 12, 15, 16. 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 29 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
Claim 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 11 is a device type claim. Claim 19 is a non-transitory claim. Claim 25 is a method claim. Therefore, claims 11-30 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claim 11, 19 and 25:
2A Prong 1:
control a control target, the control device comprising a trained model for receiving a feature amount calculated from information collected from the control target to output a score, and a threshold value for determining the score, the information processing device being configured to (mental process – a user can determine an amount calculated and determine a threshold amount for a score);
receive setting of a threshold value for any of the feature amount and the score; (mental process – a user can receive a score of a threshold amount);
calculate a threshold value for the score from the threshold value set for the feature amount (mental process – a user can calculate a score);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
display a feature amount related to the trained model and a score calculated from the feature amount (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g));
and output, as a threshold value to be applied to the trained model, any of the threshold value set for the score and the threshold value for the score calculated from the threshold value set for the feature amount (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
display a feature amount related to the trained model and a score calculated from the feature amount (can be categorized as well understood, routine and conventional activity of “transmitting or receiving data over a network” and therefore does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii));
and output, as a threshold value to be applied to the trained model, any of the threshold value set for the score and the threshold value for the score calculated from the threshold value set for the feature amount (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 12, 20 and 26:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the information processing device displays a time waveform of the feature amount and a timewaveform of the score side by side. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the information processing device displays a time waveform of the feature amount and a timewaveform of the score side by side. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 13, 21, 27:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the information processing device calculates the threshold value for the score from the threshold value set for the feature amount using a function defining the trained model (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the information processing device calculates the threshold value for the score from the threshold value set for the feature amount using a function defining the trained model (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 14, 22, 28:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the trained model is configured to output a score from a plurality of feature amounts, and the information processing device calculates the threshold value for the score from a threshold value set for each of the plurality of feature amounts.. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the trained model is configured to output a score from a plurality of feature amounts, and the information processing device calculates the threshold value for the score from a threshold value set for each of the plurality of feature amounts.. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 15, 23, 29:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the information processing device displays time waveforms of the plurality of feature amounts side by side. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the information processing device displays time waveforms of the plurality of feature amounts side by side.. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 16, 24, 30:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein on two- dimensional coordinates associated with two feature amounts, the information processing device plots and displays each of the feature amounts, and displays a threshold value for the score in a form of a contour line.. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein on two- dimensional coordinates associated with two feature amounts, the information processing device plots and displays each of the feature amounts, and displays a threshold value for the score in a form of a contour line.. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 17:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein on three-dimensional coordinates associated with three feature amounts, the information processing device plots and displays each of the feature amounts, and displays a coordinate point group corresponding to a set score. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein on three-dimensional coordinates associated with three feature amounts, the information processing device plots and displays each of the feature amounts, and displays a coordinate point group corresponding to a set score. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 18:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the information processing device outputs a plurality of threshold values.. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the information processing device outputs a plurality of threshold values.. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claim 11, 14, 19, 22, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being rejected by anticipated by Piao (US 20230206593).
Regarding claim 11, Piao discloses an information processing device connected to a control device configured to control a control target, the control device comprising a trained model (see paragraph 0074, learning model generated through machine learning) for receiving a feature amount calculated from information collected from the control target to output a score (see FIG. 7, calculate a score), and a threshold value for determining the score (see paragraph 0060, the predetermined score threshold), the information processing device being configured to:
display a feature amount related to the trained model and a score calculated from the feature amount (The determination unit 156 compares, for each registered person feature amount 1444 of a person stored in the database 140, the query person feature amount with the registered person feature amount 1444, and calculates a score indicating the degree that the person of the query person image is the same as the person of the registered person image 1443. The registered person feature amount 1444 to be compared may be all registered person feature amounts 1444 stored in the database 140, see paragraph 0059);
receive setting of a threshold value for any of the feature amount and the score (the determination unit 156 selects one or a plurality of retrieval results corresponding to one or a plurality of registered person feature amounts 1444 having scores exceeding a predetermined score threshold, paragraph 0060);
calculate a threshold value for the score from the threshold value set for the feature amount (when the score exceeds the threshold, the determination control unit 270 determines that the two carrying objects are the same, while when the score is equal to or lower than the threshold, the determination control unit 270 determines that the two carrying objects are not the same and are different, paragraph 0108); and
output, as a threshold value to be applied to the trained model, any of the threshold value set for the score and the threshold value for the score calculated from the threshold value set for the feature amount (the determination unit 356 selects one or a plurality of retrieval results corresponding to one or a plurality of registered person/carrying object feature amounts 3446 having scores exceeding a predetermined score threshold. The determination unit 356 allows information similar to that of the first retrieval result to be included in each retrieval result, for example. However, the information included in each retrieval result may be information other than that described above. Further, the determination unit 356 displays the selected one or a plurality of retrieval results on the display device 130, or/and outputs to an external device not illustrated, paragraph 0120).
Regarding claim 14, Piao discloses wherein the trained model is configured to output a score from a plurality of feature amounts, and the information processing device calculates the threshold value for the score from a threshold value set for each of the plurality of feature amounts (the determination unit 356 selects one or a plurality of retrieval results corresponding to one or a plurality of registered person/carrying object feature amounts 3446 having scores exceeding a predetermined score threshold. The determination unit 356 allows information similar to that of the first retrieval result to be included in each retrieval result, for example, paragraph 0120).
Regarding claim 19, the subject matter of the claim is substantially similar to claim 11 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Regarding claim 22, the subject matter of the claim is substantially similar to claim 14 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Regarding claim 25, the subject matter of the claim is substantially similar to claim 11 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Regarding claim 28, the subject matter of the claim is substantially similar to claim 14 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claim 13, 18, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piao and further in view of Tahara (US 20220346684).
Regarding claim 13, Piao does not disclose wherein the information processing device calculates the threshold value for the score from the threshold value set for the feature amount using a function defining the trained model.
However, Tahara discloses wherein the threshold setting unit 14 sets an abnormal-state determination threshold for estimating the abnormal state of the occupant on the basis of an abnormal state score obtained by inputting the feature amount calculated by the feature-amount calculation unit 13 to the machine learning model 17 within a predetermined time (hereinafter referred to as “first threshold setting time”) (paragraph 0081).
The combination of Piao and Tahara would result in the feature amount calculation of Piao to further use Tahara’s teachings of using a calculation for the threshold score. One would have been motivated to have combined the teachings because a user of Piao is already interested in utilizing a threshold value and allowing said threshold value calculation to be determined by a feature amount calculation unit would have made the determination for efficient and standard. As such, the combination of teachings would have resulted in a predictable invention to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Piao does not disclose wherein the information processing device outputs a plurality of threshold values.
However, Tahara discloses at least in FIG. 1 wherein the threshold setting unit can set a plurality of threshold values.
The combination of Piao and Tahara would result in the feature amount calculation of Piao to further use Tahara’s teachings of using a calculation for the threshold score. One would have been motivated to have combined the teachings because a user of Piao is already interested in utilizing a threshold value and allowing said threshold value calculation to be determined by a feature amount calculation unit would have made the determination for efficient and standard. As such, the combination of teachings would have resulted in a predictable invention to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21, the subject matter of the claim is substantially similar to claim 13 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Regarding claim 27, the subject matter of the claim is substantially similar to claim 13 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3780. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7-2, 7-10 (PST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bechtold, Michelle T. can be reached on (571) 431-0762. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID E CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148