DETAILED 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, lines 4-5 and line 8, Claim 2, line 3 and line 5, Claim 5, line 4 and line 7, and Claim 6, line 4 and line 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim discloses the limitation “plurality of analytical method.” This is construed as a typographical error, wherein methods requires pluralization; e.g., “methods.” 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 are directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
An information processing device, comprising:
acquire, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical methods;
quantify the acquired measurement data using a predetermined statistical method; and
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations, and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses An information processing device, comprising; construed by the examiner as a preamble setting forth intended use; acquire, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical methods; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; quantify the acquired measurement data using a predetermined statistical method; and; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept and/or a mental step; e.g., a mathematical calculation and/or performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to:
from a plurality of user terminals,
on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals,
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
display, a necessary analytical method among the plurality of analytical method based on results of the quantification.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 5 is directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 5 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
An information processing method, comprising:
acquiring, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical method;
quantifying the measurement data using a predetermined statistical method; and
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 5 discloses An information processing method, comprising; construed by the examiner as a preamble setting forth intended use; acquiring, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical method; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; quantifying the measurement data using a predetermined statistical method; and; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept and/or a mental step; e.g., a mathematical calculation and/or performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 5 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 5 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 5 further recites:
by a processor,
from a plurality of user terminals,
on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 5 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
displaying, a necessary analytical method among the plurality of analytical method based on results of the quantification.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 5 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 5 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1:
Claim 6 is directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 6 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
acquiring, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical method;
quantifying the measurement data using a predetermined statistical method; and
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations, and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 6 discloses acquiring, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical method; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; quantifying the measurement data using a predetermined statistical method; and; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept and/or mental step; e.g., a mathematical calculation and/or performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 6 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 6 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 6 further recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program executable by a computer to perform processing, the processing comprising:
from a plurality of user terminals,
on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals,
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 6 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
displaying, a necessary analytical method among the plurality of analytical method based on results of the quantification.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 6 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 6 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 CFR 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubouchi et al. (US 2017/0078397 A1), hereinafter Tsubouchi, in view of Yuichiro (JP 6503966 B2), hereinafter Yuichiro.
Regarding claim 1, Tsubouchi discloses An information processing device, comprising:
a memory; and (Tsubouchi, e.g., see fig. 7 illustrating a measurement data collecting system (100), specifically to server device (700), comprising measurement data storage unit (123) and determination condition information storage unit (710); see also paras. [0037]-[0038] disclosing the data collecting unit (121) receives the target data, the position data, and the time data transmitted from each of the mobile terminals (110_1) to (110_n), and stores these pieces of data in a measurement data storage unit (123). The data analyzing unit (122) performs an analysis based on the target data, the position data, and the time data stored in the measurement data storage unit (123); see also para. [0115]; see also fig. 8 illustrating an exemplary functional configuration of the server device (700)).
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to: (Tsubouchi, e.g., see rejection as applied above to figs. 7-8, wherein fig. 8 illustrates measurement data storage unit (123) as attached to data receiving unit (701), further to measurement environment determining unit (702), further to condition selecting unit (703), and further to both the target data correcting unit (704) and the data analyzing unit (122); examiner notes all of (701), (702), (703), (704), and (122) are construed as a processor; see also para. [0115] disclosing as illustrated in fig. 7, the server device (700) includes a data receiving unit (701), a measurement environment determining unit (702), a condition selecting unit (703), a target data correcting unit (704), and the data analyzing unit (122). The server device (700) also includes a determination condition information storage unit (710) in addition to the measurement data storage unit (123). The functions of these components of the server device (700) will be described below in detail).
acquire, from a plurality of user terminals, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical method; (Tsubouchi, e.g., see rejection as applied above with reference to figs. 7-8, wherein fig. 7 illustrates a plurality of user terminals disclosed as terminal ID = A (110_1), Terminal ID = B (110_2), and terminal (110_n), which is in communication with network (130) and providing data to server device (700). Further, fig. 8 illustrates inputs to the data receiving unit (701) as temperature, atmospheric pressure, illumination intensity, position, acceleration, sound, orientation, biological, camera, text, and time data as being received from a plurality of sources related to terminal ID (110_x); see also paras. [0117]-[0118] disclosing the data receiving unit (701) receives an input of all measurement data acquirable by the mobile terminals (110_1) to (110_n). In the present embodiment, the data receiving unit (701) receives inputs of temperature data, atmospheric pressure data, illumination intensity data, position data, acceleration data, and sound data that are acquirable by each of the mobile terminals (110_1) to (110_n). The data receiving unit (701) also receives inputs of orientation data, biological data, camera data, text data, and time data. Fig. 8 illustrates that the data receiving unit (701) receives inputs of all measurement data acquirable by the mobile terminals (110_1) and (110_2). The measurement environment determining unit (702) determines whether measurement data the input of which is received by the data receiving unit (701) matches a condition indicated by the determination condition information notified by the condition selecting unit (703); examiner notes that acquiring target data from a plurality of acquiring units; e.g., temperature/atmospheric pressure/illumination intensity/position, acceleration/sound/orientation/ biological/camera data, necessarily utilizes logic/analytical methods).
quantify the acquired measurement data using a predetermined analysis; and (Tsubouchi, e.g., see rejection as applied above with reference to figs. 7-8, specifically to measurement environment determining unit (702), target data correcting unit (704), and data analyzing unit (122); see also paras. [0120]-[0128] disclosing the measurement environment determining unit (702) determines whether each measurement data determined to belong to the same group by the determination condition information. In this example, the measurement data transmitted from the mobile terminal (110_1) and the measurement data transmitted from the mobile terminal (110_2) are determined to belong to the same group. Specifically, the measurement environment determination unit (702) performs the determination of measurement environment on the target data transmitted from the mobile terminal (110_1) based on measurement data other than the target data transmitted from the mobile terminal (110_1), and the measurement data transmitted from the mobile terminal (110_2). Similarly, the measurement environment determination unit (702) performs the determination of measurement environment on the target data transmitted from the mobile terminal (110_2) based on measurement data other than the target data transmitted from the mobile terminal (110_2), and the measurement data transmitted from the mobile terminal (110_1). As a result of the determination, if the condition indicated by the determination condition information matches, the measurement environment determining unit (702) determines that the target data is measured by the mobile terminal (110_1) or (110_2) under inappropriate measurement environment. If the condition indicated by the determination condition information does not match, the measurement environment determining unit (702) determines that the target data is measured by the mobile terminal (110_1), (110_2) under appropriate measurement environment. Having received the notification of the target data from the measurement environment determining unit (702), the target data correcting unit (704) corrects the target data in accordance with the type of the target data. Specifically, the correction removes, from this target data, noise (instrument noise) unique to a measurement sensor used to measure the target data. The target data correcting unit (704) notifies the data analyzing unit (122) of the target data from which the instrument noise has been removed. The data analyzing unit (122) has the same function of the data analyzing unit (122) in the first embodiment described with reference to fig. 1; see also para. [0038] disclosing the data analyzing unit (122) performs an analysis based on the target data, the position data, and the time data stored in the measurement data storage unit (123)).
display, a necessary analytical method among the plurality of analytical method based on results of the quantification. (Tsubouchi, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 9 illustrating a data acquisition state and condition match determination result, wherein the factors of the result are indicated by a position analysis, an illumination analysis, an acceleration analysis, and a sound analysis; cited above as the plurality of analytical method; see also para. [0040] disclosing the server device (120) can collect, as outdoor atmospheric temperature data, atmospheric temperature data measured under appropriate measurement environment, thereby improving the accuracy of analysis at the server device (120). In addition, the server device (120) can generate, for example, an atmospheric temperature map; construed by the examiner as the displayed necessary analytical method; and the like indicating atmospheric temperatures at various locations, by using the position data and the time data collected in association with the atmospheric temperature data; see also paras. [0146]-[0147] disclosing the measurement environment determining unit (702) determines whether the measurement data acquired at step (S1006) matches a condition for determination of inappropriate measurement environment (whether the measurement environment is appropriate). At step (S1007), if it is determined that the measurement environment is inappropriate (matches the condition), the process proceeds to step (S1010). In this case, the data analyzing unit (122) is not notified of the target data the input of which is received by the data receiving unit (701). At step (S1007), if it is determined that the measurement environment is appropriate (does not match the condition), the process proceeds to step (S1008). At step (S1008), the measurement environment determining unit (702) extracts target data of the specified type from the data receiving unit (701) and notifies the target data correcting unit (704) the extracted target data. The measurement environment determining unit (702) also extracts position data from the data receiving unit (701) and notifies the data analyzing unit (122) of the extracted position data. The measurement environment determining unit (702) also extracts time data from the data receiving unit (701) notifies the data analyzing unit (122) of the extracted time data; examiner notes that an “inappropriate” condition does not transmit data, which is construed as redundant information not required, and an “appropriate” condition is transmitted, which is construed as not redundant and therefore necessary).
Tsubouchi is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: a statistical method; and on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals.
However, Yuichiro further discloses: a statistical method; and on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals. (Yuichiro, e.g., see pg. 1, para. [0002] disclosing in recent years, statistical methods for extracting useful information from a large amount of data, that is, methods of data mining, such as principal component analysis, independent component analysis, partial least squares method is widely used; see also pg. 2, para. [0002] disclosing the principal component analysis is performed on the peak matrix thus created, and the score of each principal component for each sample and the loading for each principal component are calculated. Then, a graph such as a score plot and a loading plot is created from the result, and this is displayed on the screen of the display unit; see also pg. 3, lines 14-16 disclosing the input unit (2); construed as the first of a plurality of terminals, is for the analyst to set a parameter or give some instruction, and the display unit (3); construed as the second of a plurality of terminals, is a monitor on which the input parameter, the analysis result and the like are displayed; see also pg. 4, para. [0002] disclosing the target sample/component selection unit (15) reads out the score values of the designated sample and principal component from the principal component analysis result temporary storage unit (14). Further, the heat map frame creation unit (16) creates a two-dimensional heat map frame in which the designated main component is taken on the vertical axis and the designated sample is taken on the horizontal axis).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Tsubouchi with Yuichiro’s statistical method and display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals for at least the reasons that displaying a result as a function of a statistical method would be beneficial as to apprise the user of the results; e.g., see pg. 5, para. [0004] disclosing it is possible to perform comparative evaluation, as taught by Yuichiro.
Regarding claim 2, Tsubouchi in view of Yuichiro discloses The information processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain, by using a principal component analysis as the statistical method, feature values for each of the plurality of analytical method; and see rejection as applied to claim 1; e.g., see Yuichiro disclosing principal component analysis is performed on the peak matrix thus created, and the score; construed by the examiner as a “feature value,” of each principal component for each sample; construed as “each of the plurality of analytical method, and the loading for each principal component are calculated in para. [0002].
Tsubouchi in view of Yuichiro is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: calculate, as values of the quantification, correlation values of the feature values for each of the plurality of analytical method.
However, Yuichiro further discloses: calculate, as values of the quantification, correlation values of the feature values for each of the plurality of analytical method. (Yuichiro, e.g., see rejection as applied above and to claim 1; see also fig. 3 illustrating an example of the heat map frame; see also fig. 4 illustrating a specific heat map display; see also pg. 3, line 40-47 disclosing the principal component analysis execution unit (13) performs general principal component analysis on the peak matrix; construed as values of quantification, extracts principal components, and calculates a score and loading for each principal component; examiner notes that a score and loading are construed as correlation values as values of the quantification. Further, the coefficient of determination R.sup.2 is also calculated for each principal component. The principal component result thus calculated is temporarily stored in the principal component analysis result temporary storage unit (14). In general principal component analysis, principal component analysis results are displayed as a score plot and a loading plot as described above. On the other hand, the mass spectrometry system of the present embodiment, a heat map of score values can be displayed as a characteristic display; see also pg. 4, para. [0002] disclosing fig. 3 shows an example of the heat map frame in the case where the number of designated samples is 3 and the number of designated principal components is 5 (n = 1 to 5). In general, the main components may be arranged from the top in the order of n, and the samples may be sorted in the order of the samples names and arranged from the left. Note that, as shown in fig.3, in the heat map, a rectangular frame corresponding to one sample and one main component is called a cell; construed as correlation values of the feature values; see also pg. 4, para. [0004] disclosing if all the score values obtained in step S2 are normalized, the statistic heat map generation unit (18) determines the display color of each cell on the heat map and its shading based on the normalized score value. The degree is determined (step S5). for example, if the polarity of the score value after normalization is positive, the display color is red, and if the polarity of the score value after normalization is negative, the display color is blue, and the absolute value of the score value after normalization is The display color may be darkened as it approaches 0 to 1. further, the range of score values -1 to +1 after normalization may be associated with a predetermined color scale. Also, the normalized score value may be represented by gray scale instead of color display. Since each cell on the heat map corresponds to the normalized score value, information on the display color and its gray level or gray level is given to all the cells; see also pg. 5, paras. [0002]-[0003] disclosing fig. 4 is an example of a specific heat map display. This is a heat map display for four samples, four principal components. In this example, it can be seen at a glance much larger than the coefficient of determination R.sup.2 of the first principal component PC1 is the coefficient of determination R.sup.2 of the other main component PC2 ~ PC4. From this, it can be seen that many of the data fluctuations can be explained with only the first main component PC1. Further, it can be seen that the score values of sample B and sample C in the first main component PC1 are larger than the score values of other samples (sample A, sample D). From this, it can be seen that sample B and sample C greatly contribute to representing the nature (variation situation) of the entire data. further, in the third main component PC3, the display color of the cells corresponding to any of the samples is relatively dark. This means that in the third main component PC3, there is no sample that exhibits a significant fluctuation as compared to the other samples. Furthermore, it can be seen that, in the fourth main component PC4, sample A, which does not cause significant fluctuations in the other main components P1 to P3, exhibits a remarkable fluctuation as compared with the other samples).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Tsubouchi in view of Yuichiro’s device with Yuichiro’s calculate, as values of the quantification, correlation values of the feature values for each of the plurality of analytical method for at least the reasons that utilizing calculated correlation values may estimate a sample as having the possibility for impurities contained in the data, as taught by Yuichiro; e.g., see pg. 5, para. [0003].
Regarding claim 3, Tsubouchi in view of Yuichiro discloses The information processing device of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to, by using the correlation values, create a heatmap in which magnitudes of numerical data in a matrix are visualized in color. see rejection as applied to claim 2, specifically with regard figs. 3-4 and to pg. 4, para. [0004] disclosing normalized score values corresponding to the display color of cells of a heat map.
Regarding claim 4, Tsubouchi in view of Yuichiro discloses The information processing device of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to further calculate correlation values between the feature values and a performance value of a measurement object. see rejection as applied to claim 2, specifically pg. 5, paras. [0002]-[0003] disclosing the embodiment of fig. 4, specifically disclosing determinations of R.sup.2 of principal components PC1-PC4, wherein scores are correlated with one another which represents the nature of the data, such as significant fluctuations in the main components (P1) to (P3); construed as performance values of a measurement object.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 recites An information processing method, comprising: by a processor, acquiring, from a plurality of user terminals, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical method; quantifying the measurement data using a predetermined statistical method; and displaying, on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals, a necessary analytical method among the plurality of analytical method based on results of the quantification., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Tsubouchi in view of Yuichiro for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Claim 6 discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program executable by a computer to perform processing, the processing comprising: acquiring, from a plurality of user terminals, measurement data measured by a plurality of analytical method; quantifying the measurement data using a predetermined statistical method; and displaying, on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals, a necessary analytical method among the plurality of analytical method based on results of the quantification., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Tsubouchi in view of Yuichiro for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1. Claim 6 is different than claim 1 in the claim recitation disclosing: an information processing program executable by a computer to perform processing, wherein Tsubouchi discloses (Tsubouchi, e.g., see fig. 3 illustrating server device (120)/(700); see also paras. [0056]-[0058] disclosing the CPU (301) is a computer configured to execute various computer programs (the data collecting program, the data analyzing program) installed on the auxiliary storage unit (304)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2019/0021592 A1 to Matsui relates to a terminal device and information processing system.
US 9,807,183 B2 to Maguire et al. relates to a system and server for analyzing and integrating data collected by an electronic device.
US 9,791,572 B2 to MacGougan et al. relates to batch processing for improved georeferencing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863