DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 6/16/2023. Claims 1-13 are pending in this Office 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on June 21,2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 1 recites an information processing device (i.e., a “machine”) , which is one of statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations: “deciding a calibration function for calibration of the first causality score, based on the first causality score and the second causality score calculated for each of a plurality of users” is mathematical function; and deciding a third causality score indicating the effect on an object user, by applying the first causality score, which is calculated with regard to the object user, to the calibration function” are mathematical calculations that falls under mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 1 recites additional limitations “memory and processor”; “obtaining a first causality score indicating an effect that a predetermined operation has on a user, by inputting an attribute of the user to a first model; obtaining a second causality score indicating the effect, by inputting the attribute of the user to a second model” amount to using a computer with a generic model to apply the abstract idea. The memory and processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of “memory , processor and models “ are at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept and therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites additional element of “wherein the processor obtain the second causality score indicating the effect, by inputting the attribute of the user to the second model, the bias of which is smaller and the variance of which is greater than those of the first model” . Except for the “processor” language, the limitation can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 2 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites additional element of “wherein the processor decides the calibration function in which a difference between the third causality score obtained when applying the first causality score to the calibration function and the second causality score becomes smaller” Except for the “processor” language, the limitation can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 3 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites additional element of “wherein the processor decides a function, which is a smooth function and also is a monotonic function, as the calibration function” . Except for the “processor” language, the limitation can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 4 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites additional element of “wherein the processor estimates the first causality score by using a machine learning model generated using a machine learning framework based on ensemble learning” which amount to using a computer with a generic model to apply the abstract idea. The processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component is at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept and therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible
Claim 6 recites additional element of “wherein the processor estimates the first causality score by using a machine learning model generated using a machine learning framework based on a gradient boosting decision tree” which amount to using a computer with a generic model to apply the abstract idea. The processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component is at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept and therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible
Claim 7 recites additional element of “wherein the effect is an effect that a predetermined operation, which is directed to a user to prompt the user to execute a predetermined action, has on whether or not the user executes the action” which is a mental process. The additional element of “the first model is created based on training data, in which a score based on statistics relating to an execution rate of the action by a user having received the operation, out of a plurality of users having a predetermined attribute, and statistics relating to the execution rate of the action by a user not having received the operation, out of the plurality of users, is defined as a score indicating the effect of the operation regarding the users having the attribute” . The model is recited at the high level of generality that amounts no more than using a computer with a generic model to apply the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept and therefore, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites additional element of “wherein, with respect to the second model generated by a method of assigning a plurality of users to each of a plurality of bins in a histogram in accordance with an attribute of each user and calculating, for each bin, a causality score corresponding to a user group assigned to the bin, the processor identifies the bin to which the object user corresponds, and estimates the causality score calculated for the bin, which is identified, as the second causality score of the object user” which is a mathematical calculations which falls under the mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings. Claim 8 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites additional element of “wherein the effect is an effect that a predetermined operation, which is directed to a user to prompt the user to execute a predetermined action, has on whether or not the user executes the action, and the second model is generated by a method of calculating, for each bin, a causality score corresponding to a user group assigned to the bin, based on statistics relating to an execution rate of the action by a user having received the operation, out of a plurality of users having a predetermined attribute, and statistics relating to the execution rate of the action by a user not having received the operation, out of the plurality of users” which is a mathematical calculations which falls under the mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings. Claim 8 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites additional element of “outputting a condition relating to the operation directed to the user, based on the effect that is estimated” which is insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 10 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 11 recites additional element of “wherein the processor outputs a condition that yields higher priority with regard to the operation directed to a user for whom the effect that is estimated is higher” which is insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 11 therefore is ineligible.
Claims 12:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 12 recites a method (i.e., a “process”) , which is one of statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations: “deciding a calibration function for calibration of the first causality score, based on the first causality score and the second causality score calculated for each of a plurality of users; and deciding a third causality score indicating the effect on an object user, by applying the first causality score, which is calculated with regard to the object user, to the calibration function” are mathematical calculations that falls under mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 12 recites additional limitations “obtaining a first causality score indicating an effect that a predetermined operation has on a user, by inputting an attribute of the user to a first model; obtaining a second causality score indicating the effect, by inputting the attribute of the user to a second model” amount to using a computer with a generic model to apply the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of “first and second models “ are at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept and therefore, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claims 13:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 13 recites non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a “article of manufacture”) , which is one of statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations: “deciding a calibration function for calibration of the first causality score, based on the first causality score and the second causality score calculated for each of a plurality of users; and deciding a third causality score indicating the effect on an object user, by applying the first causality score, which is calculated with regard to the object user, to the calibration function” are mathematical calculations that falls under mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 13 recites additional limitations “non-transitory computer readable medium”; “obtaining a first causality score indicating an effect that a predetermined operation has on a user, by inputting an attribute of the user to a first model; obtaining a second causality score indicating the effect, by inputting the attribute of the user to a second model” . The models amount to using a computer with a generic model to apply the abstract idea. The non-transitory computer medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of “non-transitory computer medium and models “ are at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept and therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowable over prior art. Although these claims are allowable over prior art, all other rejections and/or objections (if any) such as 101/112/claim objection must be overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
The best art of record, Senoo et al.(Japan Patent Application Publication JP2020021151, A1 (google translation, publication year 2020) , hereinafter “Senoo”) and further in view of Nair et al.(US Patent 11,568,205B1, hereinafter “Nair”) fail to disclose or suggest one or more of the features of the independent claims .
In summary, Senoo is directed toward prediction system that outputs a score represent probability that a target person answers the call using a prediction formula learned by the learning engine based on the correspondence information indicating past phone response status and a count corresponding to the target’s person attribute information. (Senoo page 2-3) . Senoo page 11 teaches the output unit 121 determines that the recommended time zone for calling Taro Yamada to which ID=1 is given from 9:00 to 10:00 and the probability of responding is 60 and The output unit 121 outputs that the recommended time zone for calling Ichiro Suzuki to which ID=2 is given from 9:00 to 10:00 and the probability of responding is 60. Nair is directed to causal impact estimation using machine learning (Nair’s abstract). Nair col 10, lines 26-31 teaches the number of hidden layers , hidden units, choice of activation functions at hidden and output layers, learning rate, learning rate decay, number of iterations, batch size, regularization parameter, optimization function, etc., may be tunable to optimize performance.
None of the prior art of record alone or in any reasonable combination, discloses the claimed invention as recites in the independent claims Specifically, the prior art fail to teach: “deciding a calibration function for calibration of the first causality score, based on the first causality score and the second causality score calculated for each of a plurality of users; and deciding a third causality score indicating the effect on an object user, by applying the first causality score, which is calculated with regard to the object user, to the calibration function” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12-13.
The recited limitations, in conjunction with all the features of the independent and dependent claims are not taught nor suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 2-11 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights