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 .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 9/22/2023. Claims 1-17 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 15-17 are independent claims.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because it is a substantial duplicate of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a tree-structure-model-data generator that sets a splitting value,” “per-unit input data acquisition processor circuitry that acquires,” “statistic update processor circuitry that updates,” “an inference output data generator that generates inference output data,” “an update amount generator that generates an update amount,” “a parameter update processor that updates the parameter,” “an inference output data generator that generates inference output data,” and “a tree-structure-model-data generator that sets a splitting value” in claims 1, 8, 10, 14, and 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim recites “a basic statistic.” The scope of this limitation is unclear because it is not a term of art and the specification supplies only examples, not limiting definitions. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes the scope includes any statistic.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims include only the output of the device of the parent claim and not the entire device of the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “identifies a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “sets a splitting value for each node of a tree structure model based on the statistic, thereby generating tree structure model data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “statistic identifying processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “a tree-structure-model-data generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “statistic identifying processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “a tree-structure-model-data generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the statistic is a basic statistic” is a continuation of the “identifies a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim..
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the statistic includes a maximum value and a minimum value of a numerical value included in each piece of the input sequence data” is a continuation of the “identifies a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim..
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “randomly sets a splitting value for each node in a range of the maximum value to the minimum value” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the statistic includes a mean value and a standard deviation of a numerical value included in each piece of the input sequence data” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the statistic includes a mean value and a standard deviation of a numerical value included in each piece of the input sequence data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “randomly sets a splitting value for each node in accordance with a standard normal distribution based on the mean value and the standard deviation” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “randomly sets a splitting value for each node in accordance with a standard normal distribution based on the mean value and the standard deviation” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “sets the splitting value by taking into consideration a splitting value of an upper node” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “updates the statistic based on the predetermined unit of the acquired input sequence data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “per-unit input data acquisition processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “acquires the input sequence data per predetermined unit” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “statistic update processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “per-unit input data acquisition processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “acquires the input sequence data per predetermined unit” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “statistic update processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generates a plurality of pieces of tree structure model data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “learning data acquisition processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “acquires learning data, the learning data including one or more pieces of input data and one or more pieces of correct answer data” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “an inference output data generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generates inference output data based on each piece of the input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generates inference output data based on each piece of the input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “an update amount generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generates an update amount based on the inference output data and each piece of the correct answer data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generates an update amount based on the inference output data and each piece of the correct answer data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “a parameter update processor” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “updates the parameter based on the update amount” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “updates the parameter based on the update amount” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “learning data acquisition processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “acquires learning data, the learning data including one or more pieces of input data and one or more pieces of correct answer data” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “an inference output data generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generates inference output data based on each piece of the input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generates inference output data based on each piece of the input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “an update amount generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generates an update amount based on the inference output data and each piece of the correct answer data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generates an update amount based on the inference output data and each piece of the correct answer data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “a parameter update processor” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “updates the parameter based on the update amount” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “updates the parameter based on the update amount” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “identifies the parameter associated with a leaf node of a tree structure model related to the tree structure model data based on each piece of the input data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “generates the inference output data based on the parameter” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generates the inference output data based on the parameter” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “generates the inference output data based on the parameter” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generates the inference output data based on the parameter” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the update amount is generated based on a difference between the inference output data and each piece of the correct answer data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the data for generating the tree structure model and the learning data are identical data” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the data for generating the tree structure model and the learning data are identical data” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “inference input data acquisition processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “acquires one or more pieces of inference input data” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “an inference output data generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generates inference output data based on each piece of the inference input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generates inference output data based on each piece of the inference input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “inference input data acquisition processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “acquires one or more pieces of inference input data” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “an inference output data generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generates inference output data based on each piece of the inference input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generates inference output data based on each piece of the inference input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “identifying a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “setting a splitting value for each node of a tree structure model based on the statistic, thereby generating tree structure model data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “identifying a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “setting a splitting value for each node of a tree structure model based on the statistic, thereby generating tree structure model data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium encoded with computer readable instructions” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium encoded with computer readable instructions” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “identifies a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “sets a splitting value for each node of a tree structure model based on the statistic, thereby generating tree structure model data” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “micro controller unit” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “statistic identifying processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “a tree-structure-model-data generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “micro controller unit” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “statistic identifying processor circuitry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “a tree-structure-model-data generator” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2022/0230071 A1, hereinafter Liu).
As to independent claim 1, Liu discloses an information processing device (figure 8) for generating tree structure model data to be used for machine learning based on data for generating a tree structure model including one or more pieces of input sequence data (figure 1; “the requesting unit 601 is configured to send, to at least one client end, a request for acquiring statistical information for attribute information of a target category,” paragraph 0097 lines 4-7), the device comprising:
statistic identifying processor circuitry (figure 8 part 801) that identifies a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data (figure 1; “The statistical information receiving unit 602 is configured to receive statistical information for attribute information of the target category of samples respectively stored at each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 7-10; “After receiving the statistical information, the control end integrates the statistical information, to obtain a maximum value (an upper bound) and a minimum value (a lower bound) of unified attribute information of all client ends,” paragraph 0095 lines 13-16); and
a tree-structure-model-data generator that sets a splitting value for each node of a tree structure model based on the statistic, thereby generating tree structure model data (figure 1; “the control end randomly selects a value from between the maximum value and the minimum value as a split value, and calculates a split attribute according to the statistical information for the tag in the statistical information. The control end combines the split value and the split attribute into split point information, to issue the split point information to all participating nodes, and the client end constructs a decision tree according to the split point information,” paragraph 0095 lines 17-24; “The splitting unit 603 is configured to generate split point information based on the statistical information for the attribute information of the target category of the samples respectively stored at the each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 11-14).
As to dependent claim 2, Liu further discloses a device wherein the statistic is a basic statistic (“The statistical information receiving unit 602 is configured to receive statistical information for attribute information of the target category of samples respectively stored at each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 7-10; “After receiving the statistical information, the control end integrates the statistical information, to obtain a maximum value (an upper bound) and a minimum value (a lower bound) of unified attribute information of all client ends,” paragraph 0095 lines 13-16).
As to dependent claim 3, Liu further discloses a device wherein the statistic includes a maximum value and a minimum value of a numerical value included in each piece of the input sequence data (“The statistical information receiving unit 602 is configured to receive statistical information for attribute information of the target category of samples respectively stored at each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 7-10; “After receiving the statistical information, the control end integrates the statistical information, to obtain a maximum value (an upper bound) and a minimum value (a lower bound) of unified attribute information of all client ends,” paragraph 0095 lines 13-16).
As to dependent claim 4, Liu further discloses a device wherein the tree-structure-model-data generator randomly sets a splitting value for each node in a range of the maximum value to the minimum value (“the control end randomly selects a value from between the maximum value and the minimum value as a split value, and calculates a split attribute according to the statistical information for the tag in the statistical information. The control end combines the split value and the split attribute into split point information, to issue the split point information to all participating nodes, and the client end constructs a decision tree according to the split point information,” paragraph 0095 lines 17-24).
As to dependent claim 7, Liu further discloses a device wherein the tree-structure-model-data generator sets the splitting value by taking into consideration a splitting value of an upper node (“For a continuous attribute, the general approach is to sort data according to the attribute, and then partition the data into several intervals such as [0,10], [0,20] and [20,30], and each interval corresponds to one node. If an attribute value of the data falls within an interval, the data belongs to the node corresponding to the interval. These nodes constitute a decision tree,” paragraph 0084 lines 9-15).
As to dependent claim 8, Liu further discloses a device wherein the statistic identifying processor circuitry includes: per-unit input data acquisition processor circuitry that acquires the input sequence data per predetermined unit (figure 1; “The statistical information receiving unit 602 is configured to receive statistical information for attribute information of the target category of samples respectively stored at each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 7-10; “After receiving the statistical information, the control end integrates the statistical information, to obtain a maximum value (an upper bound) and a minimum value (a lower bound) of unified attribute information of all client ends,” paragraph 0095 lines 13-16), and statistic update processor circuitry that updates the statistic based on the predetermined unit of the acquired input sequence data (figure 1; “the control end randomly selects a value from between the maximum value and the minimum value as a split value, and calculates a split attribute according to the statistical information for the tag in the statistical information. The control end combines the split value and the split attribute into split point information, to issue the split point information to all participating nodes, and the client end constructs a decision tree according to the split point information,” paragraph 0095 lines 17-24; “The splitting unit 603 is configured to generate split point information based on the statistical information for the attribute information of the target category of the samples respectively stored at the each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 11-14).
As to dependent claim 9, Liu further discloses a device wherein the tree-structure-model-data generator generates a plurality of pieces of tree structure model data (“Each client end may generate a plurality of decision trees by randomly selecting sample subsets, and combine the plurality of decision trees into a random forest,” paragraph 0095 lines 27-30).
As to dependent claim 10, Liu further discloses a learning processing device that uses the tree structure model data generated by the information processing device according to claim 1, the device comprising:
learning data acquisition processor circuitry that acquires learning data, the learning data including one or more pieces of input data and one or more pieces of correct answer data (“sends a request for acquiring statistical information for attribute information of a target category to a client end participating in training of a decision tree. Each client end needs to send statistical information for the attribute information (e.g., age) of the target category and a tag (e.g., breach) to the control end,” paragraph 0095 lines 6-11);
an inference output data generator that generates inference output data based on each piece of the input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data (“horizontal federated learning,” paragraph 0050 lines 2-3);
an update amount generator that generates an update amount based on the inference output data and each piece of the correct answer data (“horizontal federated learning,” paragraph 0050 lines 2-3); and
a parameter update processor that updates the parameter based on the update amount (“horizontal federated learning,” paragraph 0050 lines 2-3).
As to dependent claim 11, Liu further discloses a device wherein the inference output data generator identifies the parameter associated with a leaf node of a tree structure model related to the tree structure model data based on each piece of the input data, and generates the inference output data based on the parameter (“For a continuous attribute, the general approach is to sort data according to the attribute, and then partition the data into several intervals such as [0,10], [0,20] and [20,30], and each interval corresponds to one node. If an attribute value of the data falls within an interval, the data belongs to the node corresponding to the interval. These nodes constitute a decision tree,” paragraph 0084 lines 9-15).
As to dependent claim 12, Liu further discloses a device wherein the update amount is generated based on a difference between the inference output data and each piece of the correct answer data (“horizontal federated learning,” paragraph 0050 lines 2-3).
As to dependent claim 13, Liu further discloses a device wherein the data for generating the tree structure model and the learning data are identical data (“The client end(s) 101, 102, 103 may store samples used to train a decision tree,” paragraph 0047 lines 3-4; “a plurality of data owning parties (e.g., an enterprise, a government organization) want to integrate their respective data to train a machine learning model,” paragraph 0049 lines 1-3).
As to dependent claim 14, Liu further discloses a device comprising:
inference input data acquisition processor circuitry that acquires one or more pieces of inference input data (“sends a request for acquiring statistical information for attribute information of a target category to a client end participating in training of a decision tree. Each client end needs to send statistical information for the attribute information (e.g., age) of the target category and a tag (e.g., breach) to the control end,” paragraph 0095 lines 6-11); and
an inference output data generator that generates inference output data based on each piece of the inference input data, the tree structure model data, and a parameter associated with the tree structure model data (“horizontal federated learning,” paragraph 0050 lines 2-3).
As to independent claim 15, Liu discloses an information processing method for generating tree structure model data to be used for machine learning based on data for generating a tree structure model including one or more pieces of input sequence data (figure 1; “the requesting unit 601 is configured to send, to at least one client end, a request for acquiring statistical information for attribute information of a target category,” paragraph 0097 lines 4-7), the method comprising:
identifying a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data (figure 1; “The statistical information receiving unit 602 is configured to receive statistical information for attribute information of the target category of samples respectively stored at each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 7-10; “After receiving the statistical information, the control end integrates the statistical information, to obtain a maximum value (an upper bound) and a minimum value (a lower bound) of unified attribute information of all client ends,” paragraph 0095 lines 13-16); and
setting a splitting value for each node of a tree structure model based on the statistic, thereby generating tree structure model data (figure 1; “the control end randomly selects a value from between the maximum value and the minimum value as a split value, and calculates a split attribute according to the statistical information for the tag in the statistical information. The control end combines the split value and the split attribute into split point information, to issue the split point information to all participating nodes, and the client end constructs a decision tree according to the split point information,” paragraph 0095 lines 17-24; “The splitting unit 603 is configured to generate split point information based on the statistical information for the attribute information of the target category of the samples respectively stored at the each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 11-14).
As to independent claim 16, Liu discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium encoded with computer readable instructions (figure 8 part 803), which, when executed by processor circuitry (figure 8 part 801), cause the processor circuitry to perform an information processing method for generating tree structure model data to be used for machine learning based on data for generating a tree structure model including one or more pieces of input sequence data (figure 1; “the requesting unit 601 is configured to send, to at least one client end, a request for acquiring statistical information for attribute information of a target category,” paragraph 0097 lines 4-7), the method comprising:
identifying a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data (figure 1; “The statistical information receiving unit 602 is configured to receive statistical information for attribute information of the target category of samples respectively stored at each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 7-10; “After receiving the statistical information, the control end integrates the statistical information, to obtain a maximum value (an upper bound) and a minimum value (a lower bound) of unified attribute information of all client ends,” paragraph 0095 lines 13-16); and
setting a splitting value for each node of a tree structure model based on the statistic, thereby generating tree structure model data (figure 1; “the control end randomly selects a value from between the maximum value and the minimum value as a split value, and calculates a split attribute according to the statistical information for the tag in the statistical information. The control end combines the split value and the split attribute into split point information, to issue the split point information to all participating nodes, and the client end constructs a decision tree according to the split point information,” paragraph 0095 lines 17-24; “The splitting unit 603 is configured to generate split point information based on the statistical information for the attribute information of the target category of the samples respectively stored at the each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 11-14).
As to independent claim 17, Liu discloses a micro controller unit (figure 8) for generating tree structure model data to be used for machine learning based on data for generating a tree structure model including one or more pieces of input sequence data (figure 1; “the requesting unit 601 is configured to send, to at least one client end, a request for acquiring statistical information for attribute information of a target category,” paragraph 0097 lines 4-7), the unit comprising:
statistic identifying processor circuitry (figure 8 part 801) that identifies a statistic for each piece of the input sequence data (figure 1; “The statistical information receiving unit 602 is configured to receive statistical information for attribute information of the target category of samples respectively stored at each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 7-10; “After receiving the statistical information, the control end integrates the statistical information, to obtain a maximum value (an upper bound) and a minimum value (a lower bound) of unified attribute information of all client ends,” paragraph 0095 lines 13-16); and
a tree-structure-model-data generator that sets a splitting value for each node of a tree structure model based on the statistic, thereby generating tree structure model data (figure 1; “the control end randomly selects a value from between the maximum value and the minimum value as a split value, and calculates a split attribute according to the statistical information for the tag in the statistical information. The control end combines the split value and the split attribute into split point information, to issue the split point information to all participating nodes, and the client end constructs a decision tree according to the split point information,” paragraph 0095 lines 17-24; “The splitting unit 603 is configured to generate split point information based on the statistical information for the attribute information of the target category of the samples respectively stored at the each client end,” paragraph 0097 lines 11-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Eckart et al. (US 2017/0249401 A1, hereinafter Eckart).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Liu does not appear to expressly teach a device wherein the statistic includes a mean value and a standard deviation of a numerical value included in each piece of the input sequence data.
Eckart teaches a device wherein the statistic includes a mean value (“The eight probabilistic occupancy maps are seeded with mean parameters that correspond to the vertices of the bounding box 810. In other words, the mean μ of each probabilistic occupancy map is set equal to a location of one of the vertices of the bounding box 810,” paragraph 0106 lines 12-16) and a standard deviation of a numerical value included in each piece of the input sequence data (“The covariance matrix Σ for each probabilistic occupancy map may be set based on a size of the bounding box 810. For example, the covariance matrix Σ may be selected such that the probability of a point located at the center of the bounding box 810 is equal to a particular value. For example, the variance associated with each dimension may be chosen such that the span of the bounding box in that particular dimension is equal to a number (e.g., 1, 3, 6, etc.) of standard deviations,” paragraph 0106 lines 16-24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the statistic of Liu to comprise the mean value and standard deviation of Eckart. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely storing a mean value (“The eight probabilistic occupancy maps are seeded with mean parameters that correspond to the vertices of the bounding box 810. In other words, the mean μ of each probabilistic occupancy map is set equal to a location of one of the vertices of the bounding box 810,” Eckart paragraph 0106 lines 12-16) and a standard deviation (“The covariance matrix Σ for each probabilistic occupancy map may be set based on a size of the bounding box 810. For example, the covariance matrix Σ may be selected such that the probability of a point located at the center of the bounding box 810 is equal to a particular value. For example, the variance associated with each dimension may be chosen such that the span of the bounding box in that particular dimension is equal to a number (e.g., 1, 3, 6, etc.) of standard deviations,” Eckart paragraph 0106 lines 16-24). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Liu/Eckart further teaches a device wherein the tree-structure-model-data generator randomly sets a splitting value for each node (Liu figure 1; “the control end randomly selects a value from between the maximum value and the minimum value as a split value, and calculates a split attribute according to the statistical information for the tag in the statistical information. The control end combines the split value and the split attribute into split point information, to issue the split point information to all participating nodes, and the client end constructs a decision tree according to the split point information,” Liu paragraph 0095 lines 17-24; “The splitting unit 603 is configured to generate split point information based on the statistical information for the attribute information of the target category of the samples respectively stored at the each client end,” Liu paragraph 0097 lines 11-14) in accordance with a standard normal distribution based on the mean value (“The eight probabilistic occupancy maps are seeded with mean parameters that correspond to the vertices of the bounding box 810. In other words, the mean μ of each probabilistic occupancy map is set equal to a location of one of the vertices of the bounding box 810,” Eckart paragraph 0106 lines 12-16) and the standard deviation (“The covariance matrix Σ for each probabilistic occupancy map may be set based on a size of the bounding box 810. For example, the covariance matrix Σ may be selected such that the probability of a point located at the center of the bounding box 810 is equal to a particular value. For example, the variance associated with each dimension may be chosen such that the span of the bounding box in that particular dimension is equal to a number (e.g., 1, 3, 6, etc.) of standard deviations,” Eckart paragraph 0106 lines 16-24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2021/0092137 A1 disclosing setting split points for a tree structure
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references 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. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 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 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights