DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 08/30/2023.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 8 are independent Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (filed 08/30/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 08/30/2023 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-7 and 9:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-7 and 9 are directed to a device and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“infer inference labels that are labels corresponding to elements included in the training data using a model that is learned using the training data and infers labels corresponding to the elements” and “generate training data confirmation screens including elements included in the training data, correct labels of the elements, and inference labels of the elements” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“a support device” and “processing circuitry” (these additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “generates the training data confirmation screens indicating the correct labels and the inference labels corresponding to elements included in the training data in a comparable manner” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “evaluates, for each element group, differences between correct labels of elements included in a corresponding element group and the inference labels” and “generates the training data confirmation screens for respective element groups such that confirmation can be performed in order from the element group having a worst evaluation result” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional elements “the training data includes a plurality of element groups each including a plurality of elements in series” and “the processing circuitry” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “generates the training data confirmation screens for respective elements included in the training data such that confirmation can be performed in order from an element including a difference pattern having a largest number of appearances among difference patterns that are patterns in which the correct labels and the inference labels are different” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “excludes an element in which a label inferred by the model is determined to be erroneous according to a predetermined rule” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “generates, for a plurality of the elements in which the correct labels and the inference labels are different, the training data confirmation screens such that the training data confirmation screens for the respective elements are switchable” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “generates the training data confirmation screens including elements in which the correct labels and the inference labels are different and elements before and after the elements” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to function as the support device according to claim 1” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis
Claim 8 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 8 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“inferring inference labels that are labels corresponding to elements included in the training data using a model that is learned using the training data and infers labels corresponding to the elements” and “generating training data confirmation screens including elements included in the training data, correct labels of the elements, and inference labels of the elements” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aikoh et al. (US 20200320409).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Aikoh teaches a support device for supporting confirmation of training data including sets of elements and correct labels corresponding to the elements (Abstract and [0007]), the support device comprising processing circuitry configured to:
infer inference labels that are labels corresponding to elements included in the training data using a model that is learned using the training data and infers labels corresponding to the elements ([0007], [0029-0034], and [0053]); and
generate training data confirmation screens including elements included in the training data, correct labels of the elements, and inference labels of the elements ([0057-0059], [0138-0142], [0153-0154] and [0159-0162]).
As to Claim 2:
Aikoh teaches the processing circuitry generates the training data confirmation screens indicating the correct labels and the inference labels corresponding to elements included in the training data in a comparable manner ([0137-0143]).
As to Claim 3:
Aikoh teaches the training data includes a plurality of element groups each including a plurality of elements in series, and the processing circuitry evaluates, for each element group, differences between correct labels of elements included in a corresponding element group and the inference labels, and generates the training data confirmation screens for respective element groups such that confirmation can be performed in order from the element group having a worst evaluation result ([0063-0064], [0101-0102], and [0117-0120]).
As to Claim 4:
Aikoh teaches the processing circuitry generates the training data confirmation screens for respective elements included in the training data such that confirmation can be performed in order from an element including a difference pattern having a largest number of appearances among difference patterns that are patterns in which the correct labels and the inference labels are different ([0121-0125]).
As to Claim 5:
Aikoh teaches wherein the processing circuitry excludes an element in which a label inferred by the model is determined to be erroneous according to a predetermined rule ([0029], [0058], and [0062-0064]).
As to Claim 6:
Aikoh teaches the processing circuitry generates, for a plurality of the elements in which the correct labels and the inference labels are different, the training data confirmation screens such that the training data confirmation screens for the respective elements are switchable ([0142-0143] and [0153-0154]).
As to Claim 7:
Aikoh teaches the processing circuitry generates the training data confirmation screens including elements in which the correct labels and the inference labels are different and elements before and after the elements ([0142-0143] and [0153-0154]).
As to Claim 8:
Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 for rejection. Claim 8 is the same as Claim 1, except claim 8 is a method Claim and claim 1 is a system Claim.
As to Claim 9:
Aikoh teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to function as the support device according to claim 1 ([0007], [0028], and [0078]).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights