Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by applicant on October 16th, 2023.
Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 2-21 is/are directed to computing, setting and generating information (i.e. computing probabilities…; fusing the information…; and generating predictions about data...), which is similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (Smartgene), which can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper; mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculating the difference between local and average data values (Abele). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In addition, courts have held computer (such as the claimed processor and memory) implemented processes not to significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 2-8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reznik (US 7,123,656).
As per claim 2, Reznik discloses a method, comprising:
computing probabilities that the data in a plurality of models contain similar information (probabilities that A and B can have similar or different mapping values are computed, see Figs. 5c-5d and col. 11 lines 3-11);
fusing the information contained in a set of the models using the probabilities that the models are similar (col. 10 lines 34-51, the states of the models are defined as each combination of 1) a coefficient location or group of coefficients and 2) a possible identifier for that location or group. The probabilities of transitions in the models represented in a descriptor are combined to form the probability of the whole descriptor. In essence, since one particular descriptor represents one specific combination of values for the coefficients or blocks it describes, it also represents one specific combination of states in a Markov model that represents those coefficients and groups); and
generating predictions about data using the fused information from the models (Abstract, utilizing the probabilistic model to create an entropy encoding; see also col. 6 lines 25-39).
As per claim 3, Reznik discloses the method of claim 2, wherein an entropy encoder utilizes the predictions from at least one of the plurality of models to compress data (Abstract, utilizing the probabilistic model to create an entropy encoding; see also col. 6 lines 25-39 and Fig. 4d).
As per claim 4, Reznik discloses the method of claim 3, wherein transformation constitutes the compression of data (see Abstract and Fig. 4d).
As per claim 5, Reznik discloses the method of claim 2, wherein correlations are measured by pairwise entropy (col. 8 lines 23-27).
As per claim 6, Reznik discloses the method of claim 2, wherein data ordering is prioritized by a relation between pairwise entropy measures (organization of coefficients represented according to the values of their identifiers and their correlations as shown in the Markov Model in fig. 5c).
As per claim 7, Reznik discloses the method of claim 2, wherein at least one variable order Markov model (VMM) models data (see Figs. 5c-5d and col. 6 lines 37-39, Markov models can be modified during the course of encoding and transmission to take advantage of changes in the source data).
As per claim 8, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 7 are applicable for claim 8.
As per claim 21, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claim 21; in addition, Reznik teaches using a computing device comprising a processor and a memory (col. 4 lines 33-36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik (US 7,123,656) in view of Pachet et al. (US 2011/0010321) hereinafter “Pachet”.
As per claim 9, Reznik discloses the method of claim 2; however, Reznik does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one variable order Markov model (VMM) is constructed using training data.
In an analogous art, Pachet discloses wherein at least one variable order Markov model (VMM) is constructed using training data (paragraphs 0006 and 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Reznik, with those of Pachet, by using training data in generating Markov model, thus improving Markov probabilistic accuracy. This rationale applies to all combination of Reznik and Pachet used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 10, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 6 and 9 are applicable for claim 10.
As per claim 19, Pachet discloses wherein a computational system searches for a model with at least one or more positive counts of one or more values from training data (paragraph 0112).
As per claim 20, Pachet discloses continuing to search for a model with more total counts from training data that maintains the counts of zero-count values at zero continues after finding a model with at least one or more positive counts of one or more values from the training data (paragraph 0128).
12. Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik (US 7,123,656) in view of Gomez-Uribe et al. (US 10,360,508) hereinafter “Gomez-Uribe”.
As per claim 11, Reznik discloses the method of claim 2; however, Reznik does not explicitly disclose wherein computation of prediction probabilities utilizes a Dirichlet likelihood function.
In an analogous art, Gomez-Uribe discloses wherein computation of prediction probabilities utilizes a Dirichlet likelihood function (col. 9 lines 4-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Reznik, with those of Gomez-Uribe, by using Dirichlet distribution. It would have been obvious to try the known Dirichlet distribution from the finite number of distributions as a matter of choice for the intended purpose of the invention (Gomez-Uribe, col. 9 lines 25-30, Although this particular example utilizes a Dirichlet distribution, other embodiments may utilize a different distribution). This rationale applies to all combination of Reznik and Gomez-Uribe used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claims 12-13, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 11 are applicable for claims 12-13.
As per claim 15, Gomez-Uribe discloses wherein a result of the Dirichlet likelihood function is used as a weight measuring a relative quality of each model within a set of active models or as parameters for computing weights measuring the relative quality of each model within a set of active models (col. 4 lines 15-27).
As per claim 16, Gomez-Uribe discloses wherein model weights are computed according to a recursive structure for computing weights (col. 4 lines 28-39).
As per claim 17, Gomez-Uribe discloses wherein a fused likelihood distribution is computed through a weighted averaging of individual likelihoods derived from each model, a weighted averaging of individual model count distributions, a weighted averaging of individual likelihoods derived from each model according to a recursive structure for computing weights, or a weighted averaging of individual model count distributions from which the likelihood distribution is derived (col. 14 lines 60-65).
As per claim 18, Gomez-Uribe discloses wherein a search is used to find a single model that best approximates a complete weighting and fusion of the models (col. 14 line 60- col. 15 line 5).
13. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik (US 7,123,656) in view of Gomez-Uribe et al. (US 10,360,508) in further view of Paul et al “Fisher Information Matrix of the Dirichlet-multinomial Distribution” hereinafter “Paul”.
As per claim 14, Reznik and Gomez-Uribe discloses the method of claim 11; however, Reznik or Gomez-Uribe do not explicitly disclose wherein a result of the Dirichlet likelihood function is approximated by Fisher's exact test or Barnard's exact test.
In an analogous art, Paul discloses wherein a result of the Dirichlet likelihood function is approximated by Fisher's exact test or Barnard's exact test (see summary section on page 230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Reznik and Gomez-Uribe, with those of Paul, by using Fisher information matrix of the Dirichlet distribution. Thus, improving exact calculation and making it quite easy (Paul, see summary section on page 230).
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 20120039388, US 20160050427, US 20160021396, US 20120057799, US 20090046941, US 20070160147)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00am-06:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights