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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim 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 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a data analysis device with structural components (claims 1 - 10) and a data analysis method (claims 11 - 12).Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
A data analysis device that analyzes a plurality of pieces of data including one or more types of explanatory variables and one type of target variable,
For example, a person reviews a several houses and uses price, size, and location (explanatory variables) to determine and/or predict the homes value (target variable).
a difference model derivation unit that derives a difference model indicating a relationship between the explanatory variable difference value and the target variable difference value based on a plurality of the explanatory variable difference values and a plurality of the target variable difference values.
For example, a person compares several houses and mentally determines that differences in size and location (explanatory variables) correspond to differences in home value (targe variable), forming relationship between those differences.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The claim further recites:
a difference value calculator that calculates an explanatory variable difference and a target variable difference in a data section, the data section being a section in which ith data at a predetermined date and time among the plurality of pieces of data is used as a start point value and (i + 1)th data at a date and time after the predetermined date and time is used as an end point value, the explanatory variable difference value being a difference between the start point value of the explanatory variable included in the ith data and the end point value of the explanatory variable included in the (i + 1)th data, the target variable difference value being a difference between the start point value of the target variable included in the ith data and the end point value of the target variable included in the (i + 1) data, where i is an integer of one or more;
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover Mathematical Concepts. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a data acquisition unit that acquires the plurality of pieces of data
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites a data analysis device, a data acquisition unit, and a difference calculator which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of a difference model derivation unit amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a data acquisition unit that acquires the plurality of pieces of data
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites a data analysis device, a data acquisition unit, and a difference calculator which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of a difference model derivation unit amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
a data section setting unit that sets the data section in the plurality of pieces of data acquired by the data acquisition unit,
For example, a person reviews a several houses and uses price, size, and location (explanatory variables) to classify the data into categories.
wherein the difference value calculator calculates the explanatory variable difference value and the target variable difference value for each of the data sections set by the data section setting unit.
For example, a person compares several houses and mentally determines that differences in size and location (explanatory variables) correspond to differences in home value (targe variable) of each section.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recitation of a data section setting unit amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of a data section setting unit amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
an end point value predictor that predicts at least one of the end point value of the explanatory variable and the end point value of the target variable in the data in a future by using the difference model.
For example, a human can review past housing prices, compare the differences over time, and mentally predict a home’s future price based on those differences.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recitation of a end point value predictor amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of end point value predictor amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the end point value predictor inputs the end point value of each of the explanatory variable and the target variable included in the data in a past into the difference model as the start point value of each of the explanatory variable and the target variable in the future data and gives a target value of the target variable in the future data to the difference model to obtain the end point value of the explanatory variable in the future data.
For example, a person can use a home’s past price as a starting point, consider a future targe price, and mentally predict the future value of a housing factor needed to reach that price.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the end point value predictor obtains, in the difference model, the end point value of the explanatory variable in the future data when the end point value of the target variable in the future data is a value closest to the target value.
For example, a person can make housing prices predictions and determine which price prediction(s) will fit a predetermined budget.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the end point value predictor inputs the end point value of each of the explanatory variable and the target variable included in the data in a past into the difference model as the start point value of each of the explanatory variable and the target variable in the future data and inputs the end point value of the explanatory variable in the future data into the difference model to obtain the end point value of the target variable in the future data.
For example, a person can make housing prices predictions and determine which price prediction(s) will fit a predetermined budget.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 3, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
an output unit that displays at least one of the end point value of the explanatory variable and the end point value of the target variable in the future data.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites an output unit which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
an output unit that displays at least one of the end point value of the explanatory variable and the end point value of the target variable in the future data.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim further recites an output unit which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
a standard difference model derivation unit that derives a standard difference model indicating a relationship between the explanatory variable difference value and the target variable difference value when the predetermined standard value is used, based on the plurality of explanatory variable difference values and the target variable difference value when the predetermined standard value is used;
For example, a person can compare differences in home prices, size, and location to a standard home and mentally determine how those differences relate to the home’s value.
a standard end point value predictor that predicts at least one of the end point value of the explanatory variable and the end point value of the target variable in the future data by using the standard difference model.
For example, a person can predict a new home’s value based on the home values of the past.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The claim further recites:
a standard difference value calculator that assumes the start point value in the data section as a predetermined standard value, calculates an explanatory variable difference value when the predetermined standard value is used, the explanatory variable difference value being a difference between the predetermined standard value of the explanatory variable included in the ith data and the end point value of the explanatory variable included in the (i + 1)th data, and calculates a target variable difference value when the predetermined standard value is used, the target variable difference value being a difference between the predetermined standard value of the target variable included in the ith data and the end point value of the target variable included in the (i + 1)th data;
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover Mathematical Concepts. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recitation of a standard difference value calculator, a standard difference model derivation unit, and a standard end point value predictor amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of a standard difference value calculator, a standard difference model derivation unit, and a standard end point value predictor amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
a selector that compares a difference between the end point value of the target variable obtained by the end point value predictor and the target value of the target variable with a difference between the end point value of the target variable obtained by the standard end point value predictor and the target value of the target variable, and selects the end point value of the target variable having the difference being smaller.
For example, a human can review past housing prices, compare the differences over time, and mentally select a home based on those differences.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recitation of a selector which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of a selector which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the selector selects the end point value predictor or the standard end point value predictor that obtains the end point value of the target variable having the difference being smaller, and
For example, a human can review past housing prices, compare the differences over time, and mentally select a home based on those differences.
the end point value predictor or the standard end point value predictor selected by the selector predicts the end point value of the explanatory variable based on the end point value of the target variable selected by the selector.
For example, a person can make housing prices predictions based on homes that were selected in the past.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OKAWA et al (US 2020/0311771) teaches an information processing device according to one aspect of the present disclosure includes: at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: generate viewing data relating to viewing of a content to be output according to an output schedule; determine whether to change the output schedule, based on the viewing data of which a predetermined value relating to the generated viewing data does not satisfy a predetermined target value; and change the output schedule, based on a result of the determination, in such a way that a predetermined value relating to the viewing data satisfies the predetermined target value.
OKAWA et al does not disclose or suggest obvious a difference value calculator that calculates an explanatory variable difference and a target variable difference in a data section, the data section being a section in which ith data at a predetermined date and time among the plurality of pieces of data is used as a start point value and (i + 1)th data at a date and time after the predetermined date and time is used as an end point value, the explanatory variable difference value being a difference between the start point value of the explanatory variable included in the ith data and the end point value of the explanatory variable included in the (i + 1)th data, the target variable difference value being a difference between the start point value of the target variable included in the ith data and the end point value of the target variable included in the (i + 1) data, where i is an integer of one or more;, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights