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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant argues the newly added limitations directed towards the aquation of sample data being more than a mere field of use limitation.
Initially, the newly added limitations directed towards the aquation of data reads as an insignificant data gathering step, as neither the result or operation of the abstract idea improves the data gathering step or the data itself. Further, what the data represent generically links the abstract ideas to a field of use, as the result does nothing to improve that field.
Applicant further argues the newly added determining a significance of the regression analysis result is not merely an abstract comparison; it produces a concrete determination that controls subsequent system behavior, the examiner does not find this persuasive. The result of this identified abstract idea does nothing to control a subsequent system behavior (as currently claimed), as the claim fails to recite a control step based on the result or even a “system” itself. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is directed towards an information processing device tasked to perform the identified abstract ideas. The device is composed of a generic processing device and memory tasked as tools to perform the abstract ideas while neither are improved or bettered by the result of those abstract ideas.
On page 9, applicant conflates the two identified abstract ideas into one. The limitations directed towards performing the regression analysis are not identified as being capable of being performed in the human mind but rather, an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as regression analysis is considered to be fundamentally applied mathematics, blending statistics, algebra, and calculus to model relationships between variables, primarily using the least-squares method to find the "best-fit" line (or curve) that minimizes prediction errors. The identified abstract idea, i.e. regression analysis, is performed by a general-purpose computer and does not improve or better that computer. The limitation directed towards the result of mathematical operations being used to generate a distribution based on evaluations and their results and then determining a significance through observation and judgement, after performing a simple calculation of absolute differences, are what the examiner considers to be capable of being performing in the human mind and therefore falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts.
Applicant further argues the volume of computations. However, under the broadest interpretation of the claims, there is no defined volume. Therefore, such evaluations, difference calculations and judgements the would preclude the identified abstract idea to be performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper.
Applicant alleges that the claims are an improvement on the technology in paragraphs [0004-0005] and [0077] of the filed specification. This argument is not persuasive. Performing regression analysis, generating error frequency distributions and significances of the regression analysis are some of the abstract concepts identified by the examiner in Step 2A. In Step 2B, it cannot be the abstract concepts themselves that improve a technology or technical field but rather the additional elements or extra solution activities such that the claims themselves amount to significantly more than the abstract concept.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites perform regression analysis for the plurality of types of the material samples based on the first data by performing regression analysis for respective combinations of at least one explanatory variable from among the plurality of explanatory variables, perform regression analysis for respective combinations of at least one explanatory variable from among the plurality of explanatory variables based on second data that results from modifying a value of the objective variable in the first data for the plurality of types of material samples which fall into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Regression analysis is considered to be fundamentally applied mathematics, blending statistics, algebra, and calculus to model relationships between variables, primarily using the least-squares method to find the "best-fit" line (or curve) that minimizes prediction errors. Therefore, the identified limitations define an abstract idea.
The claim further defines evaluate error with respect to a result of the regression analysis on the combination; and evaluate error with respect to a result of the regression analysis on the combination; generate a distribution expressing a frequency of combinations of the explanatory variables resulting in respective errors for each of the errors, based on an evaluation result of the error with respect to a regression analysis result with the first data; generate a distribution expressing a frequency of combinations of the explanatory variables resulting in respective errors for each of the errors, based on an evaluation result of the error with respect to a regression analysis result with the second data and determine a significance of the regression analysis result with the first data based on the result of comparing the distributions by calculating absolute values of difference between the frequency of combinations of the explanatory variables resulting in each error between the regression analysis results of the first data and the regression analysis results of the second data, and determining that the regression analysis result with the first data is significant when a total of the absolute values of differences is a threshold or greater which is an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea of mental concepts, as evaluation and generating a distribution of respective errors in the calculated data rely on abstract thought, interpretation of information that exist within the human mind rather than as physical entities. Further, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, determining a significance of the regression analysis result through calculating absolute differences between the combinations of variable a determining that the regression analysis result with the first data is significant when a total of the absolute values of the differences is a threshold or greater are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the identified limitations define a mental concept, capable of being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed information processing device, a memory, and a processor coupled to the memory merely define generic computer elements acting as tools for performing the abstract idea; as neither the result or performance of the abstract ideas improve or better the operation of these generically claimed elements. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The additional element limitation of “acquir[ing] measurement data of a plurality of material samples from a plurality of user terminals, and acquire first data including a plurality of explanatory variables derived from the measurement data and the analysis data, the plurality of explanatory variables being feature values of the material samples, and an objective variable that is a performance of the material sample” define an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as the acquiring the measurements data is not improved by the operation or result of the abstract ideas; thereby failing to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The limitations merely define the needed data to perform the abstract ideas while generally linking the abstract ideas to a field of use; i.e. a user’s terminal which appears to be the input of the data. MPEP 2106.05(g) and (h)
The additional element of a material sample and types of materials merely link the abstract idea to a field of use without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the result or performance of the abstract ideas improve or better the material samples. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements related to a computer environment, i.e. processing device and memory, merely act as the tools for performing the mathematical and mental concepts recited by the claim. These generic computer elements are not improved by the abstract ideas and therefore, fail to provide significantly more. The material samples merely link the abstract ideas to a field of use, as the samples are not affected by the result of the abstract ideas. Lastly, the limitations directed towards the data gathering limitation’s fail to provide significantly more, as the data acquiring is not improved or bettered by the result of the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected similarly to claim 1, as the abstract ideas are identical and the generically claimed computer elements are merely acting as tools for performing the identified abstract ideas without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites to receive a selection of at least one explanatory variable; and the processor further performs regression analysis for a selected combination of at least one explanatory variable and evaluates error with respect to a result of the regression analysis result for the selected combination which further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as making a selection via a processor to perform the mathematical operation of regression analysis, is merely a human activity of prompting the generically claimed computer tool to perform the abstract ideas with providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsubouchi (2020/0111029) which teaching using multiple regression analysis to groups of divided data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights