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 – 20 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 method (claims 1 - 12) and one or more non-transitory computer readable media (claims 13 - 20).
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:
selecting, from the plurality of reference points, a plurality of starting points that have the expected class;
For example, a human review a list of reference points, apply one or more criteria (have the expected class), and select a plurality of points that satisfy those criteria.
generating, based on the subject point and the plurality of starting points that have the expected class, a plurality of discrete interpolated points that have the expected class; and
For example, given two known data points a human can calculate an interpolated value (e.g. using linear interpolation) and identify that value as a new discrete interpolated point.
generating, based on the plurality of discrete interpolated points that have the expected class, a counterfactual explanation of why the subject point does not have the expected class;
For example, a human can evaluate the data and determine a reason (e.g. below a threshold) as to why the selected points do not have the expected class.
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 claim recites the additional elements of:
storing a plurality of reference points that each has a respective class;
receiving, after said storing the plurality of reference points, an expected class and a subject point that does not have the expected class;
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 one or more computers 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:
storing a plurality of reference points that each has a respective class;
receiving, after said storing the plurality of reference points, an expected class and a subject point that does not have the expected class;
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 one or more computers 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 claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said generating the plurality of discrete interpolated points that have the expected class comprises respectively interpolating between the subject point and each starting point of the plurality of starting points.
For example, given two known data points a human can calculate an interpolated value (e.g. using linear interpolation) and identify that value as a new discrete interpolated point.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said interpolating between the subject point and a particular starting point of the plurality of starting points comprises assigning a value of the subject point to a copy of the particular starting point.
For example, a human assign values to data to as a way to prioritize or rank. Humans have been being assigning values since before computers were invented.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said assigning the value of the subject point to the copy
of the particular starting point occurs at a probability between forty and sixty percent.
For example, a human assign values to data to as a way to prioritize or rank. Humans have been being assigning values since before computers were invented.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said assigning the value of the subject point to the copy of the particular starting point occurs at a probability between forty and sixty percent.
For example, a human assign values to data to as a way to prioritize or rank. Humans have been being assigning values since before computers were invented.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said interpolating between the subject point and a particular discrete interpolated point of the plurality of discrete interpolated points comprises interpolating between a value of the subject point and a value of the particular discrete interpolated point
For example, given two known data points a human can calculate an interpolated value and identify that value as a new discrete interpolated point.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said interpolating between the value of the subject point and the value of the particular discrete interpolated point comprises randomly generating a convex combination of the value of the subject point and the value of the particular discrete interpolated point.
For example, given two known data points a human can calculate an interpolated value and identify that value as a new discrete interpolated point.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said randomly generating the convex combination of the
value of the subject point and the value of the particular discrete interpolated point comprises using a uniform probability distribution
For example, given two known data points a human can calculate an interpolated value and identify that value as a new discrete interpolated point.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
selecting multiple nearest neighbors of the subject point from a plurality of points that contains at least one selected from a group consisting
of:
a subset of the plurality of reference points that have the expected class,
said plurality of discrete interpolated points, and
said plurality of continuous interpolated points.
For example, a human is capable of selecting the best option for a mathematical equation.
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 or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 7, 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:
storing, in a k-d tree, at least one selected from a group consisting of:
a subset of the plurality of reference points that have the expected class,
said plurality of discrete interpolated points, and
said plurality of continuous interpolated points.
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.
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:
storing, in a k-d tree, at least one selected from a group consisting of:
a subset of the plurality of reference points that have the expected class,
said plurality of discrete interpolated points, and
said plurality of continuous interpolated points.
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").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 7, 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:
generating a respective at least one k-d tree for each batch in a plurality of batches that contain subject points.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the generation process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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))
The claim further recites a data source 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)).
The recitation of language model, protein fitness, protein sequence, protein fitness prediction module, training dataset, unlabeled protein sequences, probability distribution, pairwise classifier, relative fitness, protein sequence pairs, loss function, protein sequence, and fitness score 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:
generating a respective at least one k-d tree for each batch in a plurality of batches that contain subject points.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the generation process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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))
The claim further recites a data source 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)).
The recitation of language model, protein fitness, protein sequence, protein fitness prediction module, training dataset, unlabeled protein sequences, probability distribution, pairwise classifier, relative fitness, protein sequence pairs, loss function, protein sequence, and fitness score 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 claim 12,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the subject point is a first subject point;
For example, a human is capable of selecting what point is the first subject point
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 claim recites the additional elements of:
the method further comprises after said storing the plurality of reference points:
storing the first subject point and a second subject point that does not have the expected class in a batch that has at least one k-d tree;
querying, with the first subject point, each k-d tree of said at least one k-d tree of the batch; and
querying, with the second subject point, each k-d tree of said at least one k-d tree of the batch.
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.
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:
the method further comprises after said storing the plurality of reference points:
storing the first subject point and a second subject point that does not have the expected class in a batch that has at least one k-d tree;
querying, with the first subject point, each k-d tree of said at least one k-d tree of the batch; and
querying, with the second subject point, each k-d tree of said at least one k-d tree of the batch.
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").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim further recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and one or more processors 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)).
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 11. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 12. 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.
BERIC et al (US 2019/0102868) teaches techniques related to image distortion correction for images captured by using a wide-angle lens include homography and a lens distortion correction using a radial-ratio-based look up table
BERIC et al does of record does not disclose or suggest obvious, receiving, after said storing the plurality of reference points, an expected class and a subject point that does not have the expected class; selecting, from the plurality of reference points, a plurality of starting points that have the expected class; generating, based on the subject point and the plurality of starting points that have the expected class, a plurality of discrete interpolated points that have the expected class; and generating, based on the plurality of discrete interpolated points that have the expected class, a counterfactual explanation of why the subject point docs not have the expected class; 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