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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The present application claims foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2023-025258 filed on 02/21/2023.
The examiner acknowledges that a certified copy (in Japanese) of Japanese application number JP2023-025258 has been retrieved (on 2/19/2024) as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024, 10/25/2024 and 12/06/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because Figures 1 and 10-12 include letters which do not measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see, e.g., most of the lowercase and subscript characters in FIGs. 1 and 10-12). See MPEP 507 (A) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3): Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description:
330
Page 21, line 19 of the specification recites “explanatory variable may be shown in candidate list 330 (see Fig. 9)”. However, the reference sign 330 is not present in Fig. 9.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
Reference characters 324 in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 are not found in the detailed description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
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. In particular, the title of the invention is “INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM STORING INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM THEREON”. However, this broad and generic title does not describe or reflect the subject matter that is recited in the claims. As such, the examiner believes that the title of the invention is imprecise. A descriptive title indicative of the invention will help in proper indexing, classifying, searching, etc. See, MPEP § 606.01. However, the title of the invention should be limited to 500 characters. The examiner suggests including the aspect(s) of the claims which Applicant believes to be novel or nonobvious over the prior art. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed
The disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, line 8 and page 14, line 20 recite "FIGS. 8 to 11 are diagram" which is grammatically incorrect and includes a typographical error. It appears this should read "FIGS. 8 to 11 are diagrams".
Page 21, line 19 recites that the “explanatory variable may be shown in candidate list 330 (see Fig. 9)”. However, the reference sign 330 is not present on Fig. 9. This seems to be a typographical error, and the specification should read “explanatory variable may be shown in candidate list 330 (see Fig. 10)”.
Reference character 324 in Fig. 10 is not found in the detailed description (see e.g., page 15, line 7 to page 16, line 25 describing Fig. 10).
Reference character 324 in Fig. 11 is not found in the detailed description (see e.g., page 16, line 26 to page 17, line 18 describing Fig. 11).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: " one or more processors to execute forcibly causing a time difference " is grammatically incorrect and unclear. In particular, while the claim recites “one or more processors to execute forcibly causing a time difference”, applicant’s specification discloses that “The reception unit may forcibly cause a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value” (see, page 3, lines 18-19 of the specification). Due to the placement of the adverb “forcibly”, it is unclear as to whether the processors are being executed “forcibly” or the time difference is being “forcibly” caused (i.e., by a reception unit, which is not recited in claim 18 or is base claim 13), to “exceed a predetermined minimum value." 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
the predictive model being configured to calculate …
a reception unit configured to receive … ; and
a calculation unit configured to calculate in independent claim 1.
a display control unit configured to visually output in claim 2.
a generation unit configured to generate in claim 3.
the display control unit is configured to visually output in claim 4.
a simulator configured to simulate in claim 5.
the reception unit is configured to forcibly cause a time difference in claim 6.
the predictive model being configured to calculate in independent claim 13.
a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate in claim 17.
Regarding claim 1 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited predictive model is a generic placeholder, configured to calculate … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the calculation. With regard to claim 1 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited reception unit is a generic placeholder, configured to receive … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the receiving. Further regarding claim 1, and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited calculation unit is a generic placeholder, configured to calculate … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the calculating.
Regarding claim 2 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited display control unit is a generic placeholder, configured to visually output … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the outputting.
Regarding claim 3 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited generation unit is a generic placeholder, configured to generate … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the generating.
Regarding claim 4 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited display control unit is a generic placeholder, configured to visually output … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the outputting.
Regarding claim 5 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited simulator is a generic place holder, configured to simulate … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the simulating. Further regarding claim 5, a prediction compensation unit is a generic place holder, configured to calculate a compensation variable … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the calculating.
Regarding claim 6, and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited reception unit is a generic placeholder, configured to forcibly cause a time difference … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the causing.
Regarding claim 13, and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited predictive model is a generic placeholder, configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the calculating.
Regarding claim 17, and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited prediction compensation unit is a generic placeholder, configured to calculate a compensation variable … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the calculating.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations “reception unit” and “display control unit” recited in claims 1, 2, and 4:
Regarding the above noted reception unit configured … recited in claim 1, with reference to reception unit 252, page 19, lines 14-19 of the specification disclose “Information processing apparatus 200 includes, as main functional components…a setting reception unit 252...such functional components may be implemented by processor 202 of information processing apparatus 200 executing a program (such as development program 222, user interface program 224, or model generation/updating program 226)” and page 19, lines 23-28 repeats the claim language, “Setting reception unit 252 corresponds to a reception unit, and receives the setting of prediction point 312, and the setting of explanatory variable section 322 corresponding to a range including prediction start point 314 and a period before prediction start point 314. Further, setting reception unit 252 receives selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position (offset position) candidates in explanatory variable section 322.”
As such, the specification describes the claimed reception unit by its functions along with disclosing specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Regarding the above-noted display control unit recited in claim 2 and 4, with reference to display control unit 256, in page 19, lines 14-19 of the specification disclose, “Information processing apparatus 200 includes, as main functional components…a display control unit 256... Such functional components may be implemented by processor 202 of information processing apparatus 200 executing a program (such as development program 222, user interface program 224, or model generation/updating program 226)”, and in page 20, lines 15-24, “Display control unit 256 controls display content on display unit 214… display control unit 256 visually outputs prediction start point 314 and prediction point 312 with prediction start point 20 314 and prediction point 312 associated with the time series data…"visually output" means that display unit 214 included in information processing apparatus 200 and/or any desired display unit located outside information processing apparatus 200 generates and outputs a signal and/or data necessary for outputting an image or a video”. Furthermore, in Figs. 8-11, prediction point 312 and prediction start point 314 illustrate the resulting output.
As such, the specification describes the claimed display control unit by its functions along with disclosing specific structure performing the claimed functions.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure is not described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations:
Regarding the above-noted the predictive model being configured to calculate …
a calculation unit configured to calculate … recited in claim 1:
Page 2, lines 7-9, page 3, lines 24-26, and page 4, lines 6-8 of the specification merely repeat the claim language.
With reference to the predictive model 140, page 2, lines 7-17 of the specification merely repeat the claim language, “The predictive model is configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in the future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point” and page 7, lines 2-4, “For predictive model 140, any algorithm may be used…predictive model 140 may be an autoregressive model or may use a neural network. An analysis tool may be used in generating predictive model 140.” However, the specification does not disclose any specific structure performing the steps of the above-noted calculations of the predictive model beyond the above-noted mentions in pages 2 (lines 7-9), 3 (lines 24-26), 4 (lines 6-8) and 7 (lines 2-4).
With reference to the calculation unit 254 in page 20, lines 6-14 of the specification merely provide general examples in stating “correspond[ing] to a calculation unit, and evaluates the prediction accuracy based on selected one or more explanatory variables. As an example, accuracy calculation unit 254 calculates the prediction accuracy of the value at prediction point 312 using the value of the selected one or more explanatory variables (actual value at the offset position) based on the time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model 140 (for example, predicted controlled variable yA). More specifically, accuracy calculation unit 254 calculates the prediction error by regression analysis using the value of the selected one or more explanatory variables (actual value at the offset position)”, and page 16, lines 12-15 of the specification provides another example in stating “an error of autoregressive model (for example, root mean square error, mean absolute error, or coefficient of determination) obtained by regression analysis ( autoregressive regression) using the value of the selected explanatory variable can be used as prediction error 340” and in page 19, lines 14-20, “Information processing apparatus 200 includes, as main functional components, an accuracy calculation unit 254, Such functional components may be implemented by processor 202 of information processing apparatus 200 executing a program”.
However, the specification does not disclose any specific structure or steps performing the steps of the above-noted calculations of the calculation unit beyond the above-noted examples provided in page 20, lines 6-14, page 16, lines 12-15, and page 19, lines 14-20.
As such, the specification describes the claimed predictive model and calculation unit by their functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Regarding the above-noted generation unit configured to generate … recited in claim 3, with reference to generation unit 250, in page 19, lines 14-23 of the specification merely provide general examples in stating “Information processing apparatus 200 includes, as main functional components, a model generation unit 250 … Such functional components may be implemented by processor 202 of information processing apparatus 200 executing a program (such as development program 222, user interface program 224, or model generation/updating program 226). 20 Model generation unit 250 corresponds to a generation unit, and generates predictive model 140 using selected one or more explanatory variables ( one or more actual values at selected one or more positions (offset positions))”. The block diagram of Fig. 6 merely shows a black box for a “model generation/ updating program” 226, and the high-level flowchart of Fig. 7 illustrates the general process of generating a predictive model.
However, the specification does not disclose any specific structure or steps performing the steps of the above-noted generation of the predictive model apart from the input data (i.e., training data set S1, prediction point and prediction start point setting S2, setting of explanatory variable section S3, selection of one or more explanatory variables S4) it receives and the data it outputs (i.e., predictive model S11, prediction waveform S9). The flowchart of Fig. 7 lists “calculate[ing] and display[ing] the importance of each explanatory variable” S4 and “evaluat[ing] the prediction accuracy” S6, however, these steps by themselves do not contribute or describe how the predictive model is generated by the generation unit.
As such, the specification describes the claimed generation unit by its functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Regarding above-noted, further comprising a simulator configured to simulate …, wherein the simulator calculates an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate … recited in claim 5, with reference to simulator 260, in page 19, lines 14-19 of the specification merely provides general examples in stating “Information processing apparatus 200 includes, as main functional components…simulator 260. Such functional components may be implemented by processor 202 of information processing apparatus 200 executing a program (such as development program 222, user interface program 224, or model generation/updating program 226)”, and page 20, line 27- page 21 line 3 of the specification provides another general example in stating “Simulator 260 simulates the behavior of control system 1 including predictive model 140 that executes the predictive control. Note that simulator 260 may be installed in control apparatus 100 instead of information processing apparatus 200. Simulator 260 may be executed using a computing resource other than control apparatus 100 or information processing apparatus 200.”
However, the specification does not disclose any specific structure or steps performing the steps of the above-noted simulator simulating the behavior of a control system. As such, the specification describes the claimed simulator by its functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions, with reference to the prediction compensation unit 10, in page 6, lines 1-20, “Prediction compensation unit 10 predicts future changes in controlled variable y and calculates a compensation variable u1… prediction compensation unit includes a predictor 12 and a corrector 14. Predictor 12 includes a predictive model prepared in advance. Predictor 12 calculates a predicted controlled variable yA of controlled object 4 by inputting a past output value y into the predictive model. Corrector 14 calculates 10 compensation variable u1 from a difference between desired valuer and predicted controlled variable yA of controlled object 4… Prediction compensation unit 10 can predict future changes in controlled variable y and correct manipulated variable u before deviation e becomes a non-zero value”.
The specification does not disclose any specific structure or steps performing the steps of the above-noted prediction compensation unit calculations. As such, the specification describes the claimed prediction compensation unit by its functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Regarding above-noted reception unit is configured to forcibly cause a time difference … recited in claim 6, with reference to reception unit “forcibly caus[ing] a time difference”, page 19, line 29 to page 20, line 2 of the specification merely repeats the claim language by stating “In a case where guide 318 (see Fig. 9) is shown, setting reception unit 252 may forcibly cause a time difference between prediction start point 314 and prediction point 312 to exceed a predetermined minimum value”.
However, the specification does not disclose any specific structure or steps performing the steps of the above-noted reception unit forcible causing a time difference. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose the steps of determining the predetermined minimum value. As such, the specification describes the claimed reception unit by its functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Regarding above-noted predictive model being configured to calculate … recited in claim 13, see the analysis of the predictive model discussed with reference to claim 1 above.
As such, the specification describes the claimed predictive model by its functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Regarding above-noted prediction compensation unit configured to calculate … recited in claim 17, see the analysis of the prediction compensation unit discussed with reference to claim 5 above.
As such, the specification describes the claimed prediction compensation unit by its functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Accordingly, for these claim limitations, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm(s). For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, and as previously noted, the claim limitations, “the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point”, “the reception unit” and “a calculation unit configured to calculate prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C 112(f).
However, as noted above, the written description of the current application fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the above-identified claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, for each of the claimed functions, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 2-6, which each depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 3 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, and as previously noted, the claim limitation, “a generation unit configured to generate the predictive model” in claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f).
However, as noted above, the written description of the current application fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the above-identified claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, for each of the claimed functions, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 4, which depends directly from claim 3, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 5 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, and as previously noted, the claim limitation, “simulator configured to simulate a behavior of a control system including the predictive model” and “prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f).
However, as noted above, the written description of the current application fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the above-identified claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, for each of the claimed functions, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 6 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, and as previously noted, the claim limitation, “reception unit is configured to forcibly cause a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value” in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f).
However, as noted above, the written description of the current application fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the above-identified claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, for each of the claimed functions, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 13 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, and as previously noted, the claim limitation, “the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f).
However, as noted above, the written description of the current application fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the above-identified claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, for each of the claimed functions, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 14-18, which each depend directly or indirectly from claim 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement under the same rationale as claim 13.
Claim 17 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, and as previously noted, the claim limitation, “a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit” in claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f).
However, as noted above, the written description of the current application fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the above-identified claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, for each of the claimed functions, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 13-18 are 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.
As discussed above, the claim limitations the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point,…: a reception unit configured to receive a setting of the prediction point…; a calculation unit configured to calculate prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual value in independent claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
As also noted above, the claim limitation a generation unit configured to generate the predictive model using the one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions – in claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
As further noted above, the claim limitation a simulator configured to simulate a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulator calculates an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
As further noted above, the claim limitation the reception unit is configured to forcibly cause a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
As additionally noted above, the claim limitation the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point in independent claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Lastly, as also discussed above, the claim limitation a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit in claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
However, as also discussed above with regard to the rejections of claims 1-6 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the specification fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the limitations the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point, … a reception unit configured to receive a setting of the prediction point … ; and a calculation unit configured to calculate prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values… in independent claim 1.
The specification also fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the limitation a generation unit configured to generate the predictive model using the one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions in claim 3.
The specification also fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the limitation a simulator configured to simulate a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulator calculates an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit in claim 5.
The specification also fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the limitations the reception unit is configured to forcibly cause a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value in claim 6.
The specification also fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the limitation the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point in independent claim 13.
The specification also fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the limitation a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit in claim 17.
As further noted above, there is insufficient disclosure in the specification of algorithms and specific computer hardware for implementing the above-noted, claimed units. As such, the above-noted limitations recited in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 17 are indefinite. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 17 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting the above-listed simulator and units as any combination of software (i.e., a set of instructions, code, one or more functions or software modules) and/or hardware (i.e., circuitry and/or hardware logic components/modules) capable of performing the claimed functions.
Claim 2, which depends directly from claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claim 1.
Also, claim 4, which depends directly from claim 3, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claim 3.
Also, claims 14-18, which depend directly from claim 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claim 13.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 1, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
The clam recites the following limitations:
generating a predictive model, the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point, the information processing apparatus comprising:
calculate prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model – under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the generating and calculating limitations encompass mathematical concepts (mathematical calculation – a generically-recited model calculating a value based on a predication start point and prediction point; and a calculation unit calculating the accuracy of the predicted value based on time series data).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) provides “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) further provides “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).”
Therefore, the claim recites mathematical concepts.
These operations cover a mathematical concept (mathematical calculations to calculate a value using a predictive model and prediction accuracy of the value).
Regarding the “calculate…a value at a prediction point in a future” limitation, under the BRI, in light of the specification, this encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “for predictive model 140, any algorithm may be used. For example, predictive model 140 may be an autoregressive model or may use a neural network” on page 7, lines 3-4. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
Regarding the “calculate prediction accuracy of the value” limitation, under the BRI, in light of the specification, this encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “Accuracy calculation unit 254 corresponds to a calculation unit…calculates the prediction error by regression analysis” on page 20, lines 6 and 13-14. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “an information processing apparatus for generating a predictive model” and “a calculation unit”), the limitations of claim 1 cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites, these additional elements:
An information processing apparatus for <performing the above-noted generating and calculating operations> …
a reception unit configured to <performing the above-noted calculating operations> …
and a calculation unit configured to <performing the above-noted receiving operations> …
The units1 are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited units) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
configured to receive a setting of the prediction point, a setting of an explanatory variable section corresponding to a range including the prediction start point and a period before the prediction start point, and selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section; - this is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-notes abstract idea (mathematical concept) specified in the claim because “receive a setting of a prediction point…explanatory variable section…and a period before the prediction start point” and receiving “selection of one or more positions” amount to necessary data gathering (the prediction point, explanatory variable section, period before the prediction start point and the selection of positions from position candidates) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving data is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitations of “receive a setting of a prediction point…explanatory variable section…and a period before the prediction start point” and “selection of one or more positions” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to an apparatus as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See claim 1 above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element – visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data.
This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim. That is, “visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data” amounts to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitation of “visually outputting” (i.e., outputting information) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting function.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to an apparatus as depending from claim 2, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 2 and base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites an additional element: to generate the predictive model using the one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions. This element is directed to a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
Regarding “generate the predictive model” limitation, under the BRI, in light of the specification, this encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “generation unit…generates predictive model 140 using selected one or more explanatory variables” on page 19, lines 20-21. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “generation unit configured to generate the predictive model”), the limitations of claim 3 cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 3 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
A generation unit <performing the above-noted generating operations>…
The unit2 is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited unit) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus as depending from claim 3, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 3 and base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Regarding the “prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data” element. This element is directed towards a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “prediction waveform 350 calculated using the generated provisional predictive model together with time graph 310 of the time series data” on page 16, lines 27-28. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. Accordingly, claim 4 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element - wherein the display control unit is configured to visually output a prediction waveform.
This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim. That is, “visually output a prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data” amounts to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)). This is a post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitation of “visually output a prediction” (i.e., outputting information) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting function.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to an apparatus as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the following additional limitations:
simulate a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulator calculates an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the simulator encompasses a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation – simulator calculates a value resulting from prediction compensation unit and the unit calculates a variable).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites this additional element:
A simulator <simulating above-noted operations>…
The simulator3 is recited at a high level of generality as mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited simulator) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, this rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the following additional limitations:
forcibly cause a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the forcibly cause limitation encompasses the mental process of determining a value to exceed a predetermined value (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion of determining a value exceeding another value).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element: wherein the reception unit is configured to <performing the above-noted determining operation>…
The reception unit4 is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited unit) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion of determining a value exceeding another value).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
The claim recites the following additional limitations:
An information processing method executed by a computer for generating a predictive model, the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point, the information processing method comprising:
and calculating prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model – under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the apparatus and calculation unit limitations encompass a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation – a predictive model calculating a value based on a predication start point and prediction point; and a calculation unit calculating the accuracy of the predicted value based on time series data).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) provides “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) further provides “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).”
Therefore, the claim recites mathematical concepts.
These operations cover a mathematical concept (mathematical calculations to calculate a value using a predictive model and prediction accuracy of the value).
Regarding the “predictive model being configured to calculate…a value at a prediction point in a future” limitation, under the BRI, in light of the specification, this encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “for predictive model 140, any algorithm may be used. For example, predictive model 140 may be an autoregressive model or may use a neural network” on page 7, lines 3-4. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
Regarding the “calculating prediction accuracy of the value” limitation, under the BRI, in light of the specification, this encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “Accuracy calculation unit 254 corresponds to a calculation unit…calculates the prediction error by regression analysis” on page 20, lines 6 and 13-14. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “an information processing method executed by a computer for generating a predictive model” and “calculating prediction accuracy”), the limitations of claim 7 cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites, these additional elements a receiving a setting of the prediction point, and a setting of an explanatory variable section corresponding to a range including the prediction start point and a period before the prediction start point;
receiving selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section; - this is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-notes abstract idea (mathematical concept) specified in the claim because “receive a setting of a prediction point…explanatory variable section…and a period before the prediction start point” and “selection of one or more positions” amount to necessary data gathering (the prediction point, explanatory variable section, period before the prediction start point and the selection of positions from position candidates) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 also recites, “An information processing method executed by a computer for generating a predictive model”. The additional element in the claim amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “An information processing method executed by a computer for generating a predictive model”) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving data is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitations of “receive a setting of a prediction point…explanatory variable section…and a period before the prediction start point” and “selection of one or more positions” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or outputting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Also, mere instructions to apply the mathematical process electronically (i.e., with the recited “method executed by a computer” of claim 7 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method as depending from claim 7, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: See claim 7 above.
Step 2 Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element – visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data.
This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim. That is, “visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data” amounts to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitation of “visually outputting” (i.e., outputting information) is well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting function.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 8 and base claim 7 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the following additional element: further comprising generating the predictive model using the one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions. This element is directed to a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
Regarding “generating the predictive model” element, under the BRI, in light of the specification, this encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “generation unit…generates predictive model 140 using selected one or more explanatory variables” on page 19, lines 20-21. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method as depending from claim 9, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 9 and base claim 7 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See claims 7 and 9 above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element - wherein the visually outputting comprises visually outputting a prediction waveform.
This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim. That is, “visually outputting comprises visually outputting a prediction waveform” amounts to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)). This is a post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitation of “visually outputting” (i.e., outputting information) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting function.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method as depending from claim 7, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the following additional element: further comprising simulating a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulating the behavior comprises calculating an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the simulator encompasses a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation – simulator calculates a value resulting from prediction compensation unit and the unit calculates a variable).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method as depending from claim 7, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the following additional element: further comprising forcibly causing a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the time difference limitation encompasses the mental processes of determining a value to exceed a predetermined value (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion of determining a value exceeding another value).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium storing a program, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
The claim recites the following additional limitations:
generating a predictive model, the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point, the information processing program causing one or more processors to execute:
and calculating prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model – under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the apparatus and calculation unit limitations encompass a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation – a predictive model calculating a value based on a predication start point and prediction point; and a calculation unit calculating the accuracy of the predicted value based on time series data).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) provides “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) further provides “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).”
Therefore, the claim recites mathematical concepts.
These operations cover a mathematical concept (mathematical calculations to calculate a value using a predictive model and prediction accuracy of the value).
Regarding the “predictive model being configured to calculate…a value at a prediction point in a future” limitation, under the BRI, in light of the specification, this encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “for predictive model 140, any algorithm may be used. For example, predictive model 140 may be an autoregressive model or may use a neural network” on page 7, lines 3-4. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
Regarding the “calculating prediction accuracy of the value” limitation, under the BRI, in light of the specification, this encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “Accuracy calculation unit 254 corresponds to a calculation unit…calculates the prediction error by regression analysis” on page 20, lines 6 and 13-14. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “non-transitory storage medium storing thereon an information processing program for generating a predictive model”, “calculating prediction accuracy” and “one or more processors”), the limitations of claim 13 cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
A non-transitory storage medium storing thereon an information processing program <performing the above-noted generating and calculating operations>…
receiving a setting of the prediction point, and a setting of an explanatory variable section corresponding to a range including the prediction start point and a period before the prediction start point;
receiving selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section; - these are insignificant extra-solution activities that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-notes abstract idea (mathematical concept) specified in the claim because “receive a setting of a prediction point…explanatory variable section…and a period before the prediction start point” and “selection of one or more positions” amount to necessary data gathering (the prediction point, explanatory variable section, period before the prediction start point and the selection of positions from position candidates) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding “An information processing program for generating a predictive model” element, the additional element in the claim amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “non-transitory storage medium storing thereon an information processing program for generating a predictive model” and “one or more processors”) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The “program”5 is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited program) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions by executing instructions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving data is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitations of “receive a setting of a prediction point…explanatory variable section…and a period before the prediction start point” and “selection of one or more positions” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or outputting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Also, mere instructions to apply the mathematical process electronically (i.e., with the recited “non-transitory storage medium storing thereon an information processing program” and “one or more processors” of claim 13 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium as depending from claim 13, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: See claim 13 above.
Step 2 Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element – wherein the information processing program further causes the one or more processors to execute visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data.
This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim (i.e., “visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data” amounts to necessary data outputting) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The above-noted wherein clause merely limits the invention to a narrower abstract idea by further narrowing what the information processing program performs (i.e., output data).
Regarding “wherein the information processing program further causes the one or more processors to execute” element, the additional element in the claim amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “one or more processors to execute visually outputting”) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The “program” is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited program) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions by executing instructions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitation of “visually outputting data” (i.e., outputting information) is well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting function.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium as depending from claim 14, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 14 and base claim 13 are incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: The claim recites an additional element: generating the predictive model using the one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions. This element is directed to a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “one or more processors”), the limitations of claim 15 cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional following element: wherein the information processing program further causes the one or more processors to execute <the above-noted generating operations>…
Regarding the “information processing program further causes one or more processors to execute simulating behavior” element, the additional element in the claim amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “one or more processors”) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The “program” is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited program) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions by executing instructions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mathematical process electronically (i.e., with the recited “one or more processors” of claim 15 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 15 and base claim 13 are incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: Regarding the “prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data” element. This element is directed towards a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Such computations/calculations can be carried out by hand with pen and paper, as suggested, by the discussion of “prediction waveform 350 calculated using the generated provisional predictive model together with time graph 310 of the time series data” on page 16, lines 27-28. Given a sufficiently small set of observed inference execution time data, nothing in the claims prohibit this computation/ calculation from being performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “non-transitory storage medium”), the limitation of claim 16 covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element - wherein the visually outputting comprises visually outputting a prediction waveform.
This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim. That is, “visually outputting a prediction waveform” amounts to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)). This is a post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted abstract idea (mathematical concepts) specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitation of “visually outputting” (i.e., outputting information) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting function.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium as depending from claim 13, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the following additional element: simulating a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, and
the simulating the behavior comprises calculating an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the simulator encompasses a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation – simulator calculates a value resulting from prediction compensation unit and the unit calculates a variable).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “one or more processors”), the limitations of claim 17 cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the following additional element: wherein the information processing program further causes the one or more processors to execute <the above-noted simulating operations>…
Regarding the “information processing program further causes one or more processors to execute simulating behavior” element, the additional element in the claim amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “one or more processors”) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The “program” is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited program) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions by executing instructions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mathematical process electronically (i.e., with the recited “one or more processors” of claim 17 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium as depending from claim 13, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the following additional limitations: forcibly causing a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the time difference limitation encompasses the mental processes of determining a value to exceed a predetermined value (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion of determining a value exceeding another value).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “one or more processors”), the limitations of claim 18 cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 18 recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element: wherein the information processing program further causes the one or more processors to execute <the above-noted time difference operation>.
Regarding the “information processing program further causes one or more processors to execute forcibly causing a time difference” element, the additional element in the claim amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “one or more processors”) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The “program” is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited program) and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions by executing instructions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mathematical process electronically (i.e., with the recited “one or more processors” of claim 18 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub No. 2018/0046926 A1, hereinafter Achin) in view of Shingaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub No. 2022/0083035 A1, hereinafter Shingaki). Achin was published on 02/15/2018, which is before the effective filling date of the instant application, 02/21/2023, and constitutes as prior art under U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Shingaki was published on 03/17/2022, which is before the effective filling date of the instant application, 02/21/2023 and constitutes as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Achin discloses the invention as claimed including an apparatus for generating a predictive model (see, e.g., paragraphs [0042] and [0036], “a predictive modeling apparatus”, and “predictive models generated by the selected modeling procedures, and/or scores of the generated models for time-series data associated with the prediction problem”), the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point, the information processing apparatus (see e.g., paragraphs [0014], “the period of time (“forecast range”) for which the models predict value of the targets”, [0042], “a predictive modeling apparatus including…forecast range indicates a duration of a period for which values of the targets are to be predicted” and [0367], “a skip range associated with a prediction problem represented by the time-series data is determined. The skip range may indicate a temporal lag between a time associated with an earliest prediction in the forecast range and a time associated with a latest observation upon which predictions in the forecast range are to be based…the skip range is determined based on metadata associated with the time-series data, or is user-specified” [i.e., “latest observation” being the prediction start point, “earliest prediction in the forecast range” being the prediction point, and “skip range” being the time margin. “Forecast range” containing prediction points calculated by the predictive model]) comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a setting of the prediction point, a setting of an explanatory variable section corresponding to a range including the prediction start point and a period before the prediction start point (see e.g., paragraphs [0342] and [0368-0369], “The user may indicate a desired forecast range (e.g., the number of future time periods to be predicted by the model or the number of distinct future events to be predicted by the model)” and, “skip range separates an end of the training-input time range from a beginning of the training-output time range…the duration of the training-input time range is determined based on the total number of observations in the time-series data, the amount of…and/or a duration of the forecast range” [i.e., input (setting of the prediction point and explanatory variable section) is received by the apparatus as a user setting]).
Achin does not explicitly disclose selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section; and
a calculation unit configured to calculate prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section (see e.g., paragraphs [0010] and [0042], “The selection unit is configured to select, as a candidate for an explanatory variable, at least one of the measurement item measured at a time corresponding to the candidate for the time lag and the setting item set at the time”, and “the selection unit 33 selects the time-series data m.sub.t,1, m.sub.t,2, . . . , m.sub.t,k of the measurement item of time t with no time lag; the time-series data…measured 30 min before…60 min before… [and] 90 min before…t is a variable representing the time included in the analysis target period [and] time-lag-group data at time t in this case is a set of candidates for the explanatory variable”); and
a calculation unit configured to calculate prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model (see e.g. paragraphs [0045] and [0051], “The calculation unit 34 reads the time-lag-group data stored in the time-lag-group-data storage unit D2, and calculates, for each analysis item (measurement item or setting item), a regularization path indicating the transition of the regression coefficient for the candidate for the explanatory variable that varies in accordance with the value of the regularization parameter of the regression model (Step S4)”, and “the evaluation unit 36 reads the time-lag-group data from the time-lag-group-data storage unit D2, evaluate the performance of the regression model (D5) with the time-lag-group data, and then calculates the model accuracy (D6) such as a determination coefficient (R2) or a mean squared error (MSE)” [i.e., using the specific positions (time-lag-group-data) against actual values (R2 or MSE) to calculate the prediction accuracy]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Achin’s “predictive modeling apparatus” that includes “forecast range…skip range” and “targets [that] are identified based on user input” (see, e.g., Achin, paragraphs [0041-0042] [i.e., “targets” being output variables to be predicted]) to add Shingaki’s “evaluation unit…[that] calculated the model accuracy” (see, e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0051]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as the “conventionally known a technique in which automatic extraction of a large amount of features is performed with a penalized regression model to construct a regression model…[is] difficult to control the number of time lags associated with each piece of analysis target data, when constructing a regression model that predicts a process variable”, as suggested by Shingaki (see e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Achin does not explicitly disclose a display control unit configured to visually output the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches a display control unit configured to visually output the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data (see e.g., paragraph [0052], “display control unit 37…displays display information based on the regression model D5 and the model accuracy D6 on the user interface 19 (Step S7). The display information includes, for example, the objective variable, the explanatory variable of the regression model D5, and the time lag based on the regularization parameter used for the determination of the regression model D5.”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Achin further discloses a generation unit configured to generate the predictive model using the one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions (see e.g., paragraphs [0036] and [0204], “predictive models generated by the selected modeling procedures” and “a user may modify one or more modeling techniques and select the modified techniques for consideration…a user may change the features used to train the modeling techniques or fit the models (e.g., by adding features, removing features, or selecting different features)” [i.e., the predictive model can be generated based on the preference of the user]).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Achin does not explicitly disclose the display control unit is configured to visually output a prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches the display control unit is configured to visually output a prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data (see e.g., paragraph [0054], “Each graph 112 indicates the time-series data of the values of the explanatory variable. The graph 112 is displayed by sliding in accordance with the time lag indicated on the display 111. The graph 113 indicates the time-series data of the values of an objective variable. As in the example of FIG. 5, the measurement value of the process sensor 5 that does not affect the objective variable”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Achin further discloses the reception unit is configured to forcibly cause a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches the reception unit is configured to forcibly cause a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value (see e.g., paragraph [0367], “The skip range may be determined based, at least in part, on latency in collection of the time-series data, latency in communication of the time-series data, latency in analyzing the time-series data, latency in communication of analyses of the time series-data, and/or latency of implementing actions based on the analyses of the time series-data”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 7, Achin discloses the invention as claimed including a method executed by a computer for generating a predictive model (see e.g., paragraphs [0015] and [0016], “predictive modeling method” and “corresponding computer systems…configured to perform the actions of the methods”), the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point, the information processing method (see e.g., paragraph, [0014], “the period of time (“forecast range”) for which the models predict value of the targets”, see paragraph [0042], “a predictive modeling apparatus including…forecast range indicates a duration of a period for which values of the targets are to be predicted” and see paragraph [0367], “a skip range associated with a prediction problem represented by the time-series data is determined. The skip range may indicate a temporal lag between a time associated with an earliest prediction in the forecast range and a time associated with a latest observation upon which predictions in the forecast range are to be based…the skip range is determined based on metadata associated with the time-series data, or is user-specified” [i.e., “latest observation” being the prediction start point, “earliest prediction in the forecast range” being the prediction point, and “skip range” being the time margin. “Forecast range” containing prediction points calculated by the predictive model]) comprising:
receiving a setting of the prediction point, and a setting of an explanatory variable section corresponding to a range including the prediction start point and a period before the prediction start point (see e.g., paragraphs [0342] and [0368-0369], “The user may indicate a desired forecast range (e.g., the number of future time periods to be predicted by the model or the number of distinct future events to be predicted by the model)” and, “skip range separates an end of the training-input time range from a beginning of the training-output time range…the duration of the training-input time range is determined based on the total number of observations in the time-series data, the amount of…and/or a duration of the forecast range” [i.e., input (setting of the prediction point and explanatory variable section) is received by the apparatus as a user setting]).
Achin does not explicitly disclose receiving selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section; and
calculating prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches receiving selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section (see e.g., paragraphs [0010] and [0042], “The selection unit is configured to select, as a candidate for an explanatory variable, at least one of the measurement item measured at a time corresponding to the candidate for the time lag and the setting item set at the time”, and “the selection unit 33 selects the time-series data m.sub.t,1, m.sub.t,2, . . . , m.sub.t,k of the measurement item of time t with no time lag; the time-series data…measured 30 min before…60 min before… [and] 90 min before…t is a variable representing the time included in the analysis target period [and] time-lag-group data at time t in this case is a set of candidates for the explanatory variable”); and
calculating prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model (see e.g. paragraphs [0045] and [0051], “The calculation unit 34 reads the time-lag-group data stored in the time-lag-group-data storage unit D2, and calculates, for each analysis item (measurement item or setting item), a regularization path indicating the transition of the regression coefficient for the candidate for the explanatory variable that varies in accordance with the value of the regularization parameter of the regression model (Step S4)”, and “the evaluation unit 36 reads the time-lag-group data from the time-lag-group-data storage unit D2, evaluate the performance of the regression model (D5) with the time-lag-group data, and then calculates the model accuracy (D6) such as a determination coefficient (R2) or a mean squared error (MSE)” [i.e., using the specific positions (time-lag-group-data) against actual values (R2 or MSE) to calculate the prediction accuracy]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Achin’s “predictive modeling apparatus” that includes “forecast range…skip range” and “targets [that] are identified based on user input” (see, e.g., Achin, paragraphs [0041-0042] [i.e., “targets” being output variables to be predicted]) to add Shingaki’s “evaluation unit…[that] calculated the model accuracy” (see, e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0051]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as the “conventionally known a technique in which automatic extraction of a large amount of features is performed with a penalized regression model to construct a regression model…[is] difficult to control the number of time lags associated with each piece of analysis target data, when constructing a regression model that predicts a process variable”, as suggested by Shingaki (see e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the method of claim 7.
Achin does not explicitly disclose visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data (see e.g., paragraph [0052], “display control unit 37…displays display information based on the regression model D5 and the model accuracy D6 on the user interface 19 (Step S7). The display information includes, for example, the objective variable, the explanatory variable of the regression model D5, and the time lag based on the regularization parameter used for the determination of the regression model D5.”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the method of claim 7.
Achin further discloses generating the predictive model using the one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions (see e.g., paragraphs [0036] and [0204], “predictive models generated by the selected modeling procedures” and “a user may modify one or more modeling techniques and select the modified techniques for consideration…a user may change the features used to train the modeling techniques or fit the models (e.g., by adding features, removing features, or selecting different features)” [i.e., the predictive model can be generated based on the preference of the user]).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the method of claim 7.
Achin does not explicitly disclose visually outputting comprises visually outputting a prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches visually outputting comprises visually outputting a prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data (see e.g., paragraph [0054], “Each graph 112 indicates the time-series data of the values of the explanatory variable. The graph 112 is displayed by sliding in accordance with the time lag indicated on the display 111. The graph 113 indicates the time-series data of the values of an objective variable. As in the example of FIG. 5, the measurement value of the process sensor 5 that does not affect the objective variable”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the method of claim 7.
Achin further discloses forcibly causing a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches forcibly causing a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value (see e.g., paragraph [0367], “The skip range may be determined based, at least in part, on latency in collection of the time-series data, latency in communication of the time-series data, latency in analyzing the time-series data, latency in communication of analyses of the time series-data, and/or latency of implementing actions based on the analyses of the time series-data”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding independent claim 13, Achin discloses the invention as claimed including a non-transitory storage medium storing thereon an information processing program for generating a predictive model (see e.g., paragraph [0477], “some embodiments may be embodied as a computer readable medium…encoded with one or more programs that, when executed on one or more computers or other processors, perform [the] methods”), the predictive model being configured to calculate, at a prediction start point, a value at a prediction point in a future by a predetermined time margin from the prediction start point, the information processing program causing one or more processors to (see e.g., paragraph, [0014], “the period of time (“forecast range”) for which the models predict value of the targets”, see paragraph [0042], “a predictive modeling apparatus including…forecast range indicates a duration of a period for which values of the targets are to be predicted” and see paragraph [0367], “a skip range associated with a prediction problem represented by the time-series data is determined. The skip range may indicate a temporal lag between a time associated with an earliest prediction in the forecast range and a time associated with a latest observation upon which predictions in the forecast range are to be based…the skip range is determined based on metadata associated with the time-series data, or is user-specified” [i.e., “latest observation” being the prediction start point, “earliest prediction in the forecast range” being the prediction point, and “skip range” being the time margin. “Forecast range” containing prediction points calculated by the predictive model]) execute:
receiving a setting of the prediction point, and a setting of an explanatory variable section corresponding to a range including the prediction start point and a period before the prediction start point (see e.g., paragraphs [0342] and [0368-0369], “The user may indicate a desired forecast range (e.g., the number of future time periods to be predicted by the model or the number of distinct future events to be predicted by the model)” and, “skip range separates an end of the training-input time range from a beginning of the training-output time range…the duration of the training-input time range is determined based on the total number of observations in the time-series data, the amount of…and/or a duration of the forecast range” [i.e., input (setting of the prediction point and explanatory variable section) is received by the apparatus as a user setting]).
Achin does not explicitly disclose receiving selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section; and
calculating prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches receiving selection of one or more positions from among a plurality of position candidates in the explanatory variable section (see e.g., paragraphs [0010] and [0042], “The selection unit is configured to select, as a candidate for an explanatory variable, at least one of the measurement item measured at a time corresponding to the candidate for the time lag and the setting item set at the time”, and “the selection unit 33 selects the time-series data m.sub.t,1, m.sub.t,2, . . . , m.sub.t,k of the measurement item of time t with no time lag; the time-series data…measured 30 min before…60 min before… [and] 90 min before…t is a variable representing the time included in the analysis target period [and] time-lag-group data at time t in this case is a set of candidates for the explanatory variable”); and
calculating prediction accuracy of the value at the prediction point using one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions based on time series data of the actual value corresponding to the value calculated by the predictive model (see e.g. paragraphs [0045] and [0051], “The calculation unit 34 reads the time-lag-group data stored in the time-lag-group-data storage unit D2, and calculates, for each analysis item (measurement item or setting item), a regularization path indicating the transition of the regression coefficient for the candidate for the explanatory variable that varies in accordance with the value of the regularization parameter of the regression model (Step S4)”, and “the evaluation unit 36 reads the time-lag-group data from the time-lag-group-data storage unit D2, evaluate the performance of the regression model (D5) with the time-lag-group data, and then calculates the model accuracy (D6) such as a determination coefficient (R2) or a mean squared error (MSE)” [i.e., using the specific positions (time-lag-group-data) against actual values (R2 or MSE) to calculate the prediction accuracy]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Achin’s “predictive modeling apparatus” that includes “forecast range…skip range” and “targets [that] are identified based on user input” (see, e.g., Achin, paragraphs [0041-0042] [i.e., “targets” being output variables to be predicted]) to add Shingaki’s “evaluation unit…[that] calculated the model accuracy” (see, e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0051]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as the “conventionally known a technique in which automatic extraction of a large amount of features is performed with a penalized regression model to construct a regression model…[is] difficult to control the number of time lags associated with each piece of analysis target data, when constructing a regression model that predicts a process variable”, as suggested by Shingaki (see e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 13.
Achin does not explicitly disclose visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches visually outputting the prediction start point and the prediction point with the prediction start point and the prediction point associated with the time series data (see e.g., paragraph [0052], “display control unit 37…displays display information based on the regression model D5 and the model accuracy D6 on the user interface 19 (Step S7). The display information includes, for example, the objective variable, the explanatory variable of the regression model D5, and the time lag based on the regularization parameter used for the determination of the regression model D5.”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 14.
Achin further discloses generating the predictive model using the one or more actual values at the selected one or more positions (see e.g., paragraphs [0036] and [0204], “predictive models generated by the selected modeling procedures” and “a user may modify one or more modeling techniques and select the modified techniques for consideration…a user may change the features used to train the modeling techniques or fit the models (e.g., by adding features, removing features, or selecting different features)” [i.e., the predictive model can be generated based on the preference of the user]).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 15.
Achin does not explicitly disclose visually outputting comprises visually outputting a prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches visually outputting comprises visually outputting a prediction waveform calculated using the predictive model generated together with the time series data (see e.g., paragraph [0054], “Each graph 112 indicates the time-series data of the values of the explanatory variable. The graph 112 is displayed by sliding in accordance with the time lag indicated on the display 111. The graph 113 indicates the time-series data of the values of an objective variable. As in the example of FIG. 5, the measurement value of the process sensor 5 that does not affect the objective variable”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 13.
Achin further discloses forcibly causing a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value.
However, in the same field, analogous art Shingaki teaches forcibly causing a time difference between the prediction start point and the prediction point to exceed a predetermined minimum value (see e.g., paragraph [0367], “The skip range may be determined based, at least in part, on latency in collection of the time-series data, latency in communication of the time-series data, latency in analyzing the time-series data, latency in communication of analyses of the time series-data, and/or latency of implementing actions based on the analyses of the time series-data”).
The motivation to combine Achin and Shingaki is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub No. 2018/0046926 A1, hereinafter Achin) in view of Shingaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub No. 2022/0083035 A1, hereinafter Shingaki), and further in view of Gumussoy and Gahinet (“Computer Aided Control System Design for Time Delay Systems using MATLAB®”. 2014, In: Vyhlídal, T., Lafay, JF., Sipahi, R. (eds) Delay Systems. Advances in Delays and Dynamics, vol 1. Springer, Cham. Hereinafter, Gumussoy). Achin was published on 02/15/2018, which is before the effective filling date of the instant application, 02/21/2023, and constitutes as prior art under U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Shingaki was published on 03/17/2022, which is before the effective filling date of the instant application, 02/21/2023 and constitutes as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Gumussoy was published in 2014 and constitutes as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Achin in view of Shingaki does not explicitly teach a simulator configured to simulate a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulator calculates an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit.
However, in the same field, analogous art Gumussoy teaches, a simulator configured to simulate a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulator calculates an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values (see e.g., page 263, Sect 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations: “of TPI and TSP to the tracking signal, ref by the following commands:… lsim(Tsp, Tpi, ref, time)” and “The resulting responses are shown in Figure 4 (on the left). Simulation results show that PI controller has a slower response time with oscillations and the Smith Predictor has better tracking performance.”) when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit (see e.g., page 261, Sect. 4. Interconnections: “Consider the Smith Predictor control structure given in Figure 3 for the same dead-time system P(s) in (1). The Smith Predictor uses an internal model to predict the delay-free response yp(t) of the plant, and seeks to correct discrepancies between this prediction and the setpoint ysp(t), rather than between the delayed output measurement y(t) and ysp(t).” [i.e., “the Smith Predictor” block computes a correction signal from an internal predictive model being the prediction compensation unit calculating a compensation variable.]) and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit (see e.g., page 258, Sect 2. Motivation Examples: “In the classical feedback configuration in Figure 1, the standard PI controller is chosen as… The closed-loop transfer function from ysp to y is TPI(s).” and Fig. 4: a graph that illustrates the comparison between the output values based on the difference between the two-control system configurations [i.e., “the Smith Predictor” being the first control system with the prediction compensation unit and “PI controller” being the second control system without the prediction compensation unit]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Achin’s “fitting a predictive model to the training data…and testing the fitting model on the testing data” (see e.g., Achin, paragraph [0015]) to add Shingaki’s “evaluation unit…[that] calculated the model accuracy” (see, e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0051] and further add Gumussoy’s teaching of simulating “the responses of TPI and TSF to the tracking signal, ref” (see e.g., Gumussoy, page 263, Sect 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as the “simulation results show that PI controller has a slower response time with oscillations, and the Smith Predictor has better tracking performance”, as suggested by Gumussoy (see e.g., Gumussoy, page 263, Sect. 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations [i.e., “the Smith Predictor” being the first control system with the prediction compensation unit and “PI controller” being the second control system without the prediction compensation unit]).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the method of claim 7.
Achin in view of Shingaki does not explicitly teach simulating a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulating the behavior comprises calculating an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit.
However, in the same field, analogous art Gumussoy teaches, simulating a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulating the behavior comprises calculating an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values (see e.g., page 263, Sect 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations: “of TPI and TSP to the tracking signal, ref by the following commands:… lsim(Tsp, Tpi, ref, time)” and “The resulting responses are shown in Figure 4 (on the left). Simulation results show that PI controller has a slower response time with oscillations and the Smith Predictor has better tracking performance.”) when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit (see e.g., page 261, Sect. 4. Interconnections: “Consider the Smith Predictor control structure given in Figure 3 for the same dead-time system P(s) in (1). The Smith Predictor uses an internal model to predict the delay-free response yp(t) of the plant, and seeks to correct discrepancies between this prediction and the setpoint ysp(t), rather than between the delayed output measurement y(t) and ysp(t).” [i.e., “the Smith Predictor” block computes a correction signal from an internal predictive model being the prediction compensation unit calculating a compensation variable.]) and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit (see e.g., page 258, Sect 2. Motivation Examples: “In the classical feedback configuration in Figure 1, the standard PI controller is chosen as… The closed-loop transfer function from ysp to y is TPI(s).” and Fig. 4: a graph that illustrates the comparison between the output values based on the difference between the two-control system configurations[i.e., “the Smith Predictor” being the first control system with the prediction compensation unit and “PI controller” being the second control system without the prediction compensation unit]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Achin’s “fitting a predictive model to the training data…and testing the fitting model on the testing data” (see e.g., Achin, paragraph [0015]) to add Shingaki’s “evaluation unit…[that] calculated the model accuracy” (see, e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0051] and further add Gumussoy’s teaching of simulating “the responses of TPI and TSF to the tracking signal, ref” (see e.g., Gumussoy, page 263, Sect 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as the “simulation results show that PI controller has a slower response time with oscillations, and the Smith Predictor has better tracking performance”, as suggested by Gumussoy (see e.g., Gumussoy, page 263, Sect. 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations [i.e., “the Smith Predictor” being the first control system with the prediction compensation unit and “PI controller” being the second control system without the prediction compensation unit]).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above, Achin in view of Shingaki teaches the non-transitory storage medium storing an information processing program of claim 13.
Achin in view of Shingaki does not explicitly teach simulating a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulating the behavior comprises calculating an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit.
However, in the same field, analogous art Gumussoy teaches simulating a behavior of a control system including the predictive model, wherein the simulating the behavior comprises calculating an effect caused by a prediction compensation unit configured to calculate a compensation variable using the predictive model based on a difference between output values (see e.g., page 263, Sect 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations: “of TPI and TSP to the tracking signal, ref by the following commands:… lsim(Tsp, Tpi, ref, time)” and “The resulting responses are shown in Figure 4 (on the left). Simulation results show that PI controller has a slower response time with oscillations and the Smith Predictor has better tracking performance.”) when a same input data is given to a first control system with the prediction compensation unit (see e.g., page 261, Sect. 4. Interconnections: “Consider the Smith Predictor control structure given in Figure 3 for the same dead-time system P(s) in (1). The Smith Predictor uses an internal model to predict the delay-free response yp(t) of the plant, and seeks to correct discrepancies between this prediction and the setpoint ysp(t), rather than between the delayed output measurement y(t) and ysp(t).” [i.e., “the Smith Predictor” block computes a correction signal from an internal predictive model being the prediction compensation unit calculating a compensation variable.]) and to a second control system without the prediction compensation unit (see e.g., page 258, Sect 2. Motivation Examples: “In the classical feedback configuration in Figure 1, the standard PI controller is chosen as… The closed-loop transfer function from ysp to y is TPI(s).” and Fig. 4: a graph that illustrates the comparison between the output values based on the difference between the two-control system configurations[i.e., “the Smith Predictor” being the first control system with the prediction compensation unit and “PI controller” being the second control system without the prediction compensation unit]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Achin’s “fitting a predictive model to the training data…and testing the fitting model on the testing data” (see e.g., Achin, paragraph [0015]) to add Shingaki’s “evaluation unit…[that] calculated the model accuracy” (see, e.g., Shingaki, paragraph [0051] and further add Gumussoy’s teaching of simulating “the responses of TPI and TSF to the tracking signal, ref” (see e.g., Gumussoy, page 263, Sect 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as the “simulation results show that PI controller has a slower response time with oscillations, and the Smith Predictor has better tracking performance”, as suggested by Gumussoy (see e.g., Gumussoy, page 263, Sect. 5. Time/ Frequency Domain Analyses and Visualizations [i.e., “the Smith Predictor” being the first control system with the prediction compensation unit and “PI controller” being the second control system without the prediction compensation unit]).
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAAJITA BATTINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (7:30 am - 5:00 pm) EST.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at 5712727796. 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.
/RB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 As indicated above in the section 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejection of this claim, the units have been interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e., obtaining/ receiving and calculating inputs.)
2 As indicated above in the section 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejection of this claim, the unit has been interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e., generating outputs).
3 As indicated above in the section 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejection of this claim, the simulator has been interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e., simulating behaviors).
4 As indicated above in the section 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejection of this claim, the “reception unit” has been interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e., determining inputs).
5 Page 4, lines 8-10, “The information processing program causes a computer to execute receiving a setting of prediction point”, page 11, line 28 – page 12, line 1, “An information processing program…includes development program 222, user interface program 224, and model generation/ updating program 226” and page 19, lines 16-19, “Such functional components may be implemented by processor 202 of information processing apparatus 200 executing a program (such as a development program 222, user interface program 224, or model generation/updating program 226)”. Therefore, the “program” is being interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e., generating, obtaining/ receiving and calculating).
Prosecution Insights