DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-5 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 a plurality of types of a material sample based on first data including a plurality of explanatory variables that are feature values of the material sample and an objective variable that is a performance of the material sample, 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 sample 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 output a result of comparing the distributions 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. 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 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. Lastly, 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.
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 2 recites the processor is further configured to: determine a significance of the regression analysis result with the first data based on a result of comparing the distributions; and visualize a magnitude of regression coefficients for each of the explanatory variables obtained as the regression analysis result for each explanatory variable combination in a case in which the regression analysis result with the first data is determined to be significant. The above limitations further define the abstract ideas, as determining a significance of the mathematical operation based on a comparison and visualizing the magnitude of the regression coefficients are mental concepts related to judgment and observations. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Lastly, the processor merely acts as generic computer element tasked as a tool for performing the abstract ideas without being improved by the result of the abstract ideas.
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.
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