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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the element acquired in the past” renders the claim indefinite for the following reasons:
i) The limitation “the element acquired in the past” lacks antecedent basis.
ii) It is unclear and confusing whether the “two or more of the plurality of elements” (recited in claim 1) becomes the “element required in the past” (recited in claim 9) for purposes of a second iteration. If such is the case, how does one choose a single element from the two or more elements used in the past iteration? Please amend the claim for clarification.
iii) It is unclear and confusing whether the “element of the sequential data has been newly acquired” refers to: a) one of the “two or more of the plurality of the elements” (recited in claim 1), or b) a third element in addition to the “two or more of the plurality of the elements” (recited in claim 1).
Please amend the claim for clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verma et al. (USPAPN 2002/0174086).
Regarding claim 1, Verma discloses:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (see fig 3, a computer system 200), wherein
the at least one processor sequentially acquires a plurality of elements included in sequential data (see para [24], plurality of incoming sample j; and see para [33] the incoming sample j comprising video and audio data);
the at least one processor calculates, based on two or more of the plurality of elements, indicators indicating which one of a plurality of classes the plurality of respective elements should belong to (see para [24]-[26] and [32], calculating, for every incoming sample j, likelihood lijk, indicating log likelihood of sample j belonging in class k using classifier i);
the at least one processor calculates weights showing importance of the respective indicators of the plurality of respective elements (see para [24]-[26], calculating weights wij);
the at least one processor weights the indicators of the plurality of respective elements by the corresponding weights and integrating the weighted indicators to calculate an integrated indicator indicating which one of the plurality of classes the sequential data should belong to (see para [24]-[26], [32], and [37], weighting the likelihoods (i.e., wij * lijk) and integrating (i.e., Σ) the weighted likelihoods to calculate an integrated indicator CLjk); and
the at least one processor classifies the sequential data into one of the classes based on the integrated indicator (see para [24]-[26], classifying each sample j based on the corresponding integrated indicator CLjk).
Regarding claim 2, Verma further discloses: wherein, in the calculation of the weights, weights showing the importance of the respective indicators of the plurality of respective elements are calculated using one or more of the indicators including the indicators that correspond to the respective weights, the one or more of the indicators being calculated in the calculation of the indicators (see para [24]-[26] and [34], weights wij are calculated using the likelihood lijk that has been calculated).
Regarding claim 3, Verma further discloses: wherein, in the calculation of the weights, weights showing the importance of the respective indicators of the plurality of respective elements are calculated using two or more of the indicators including the indicators that correspond to the respective weights, the two or more of the indicators being calculated in the calculation of the indicators (see para [24]-[26], [32], and [34], weights wij are calculated using the likelihood Iijk; wherein lijk comprises multiple values over varying i).
Regarding claim 4, Verma further discloses: wherein the indicator includes a likelihood ratio indicating a likelihood that each of the plurality of elements belongs to a certain one of the plurality of classes (see rejection of claim 1, likelihood lijk, indicating log likelihood of sample j belonging in class k using classifier i).
Regarding claim 5, Verma further discloses: wherein the integrated indicator includes an integrated score indicating a likelihood that the sequential data belongs to a certain one of the plurality of classes (see rejection of claim 1, classifying the sample j into a class according to the integrated weighted likelihoods).
Regarding claim 12, Verma further discloses: wherein the sequential data is time-series data (see rejection of claim 1, the plurality of incoming sample j comprising video and audio data, which is a time-series data).
Regarding claim 13, Verma further discloses: a medical information acquisition apparatus configured to acquire medical information on a target person; and the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus classifies the sequential data including the medical information as the element into one of the classes (see para [2]-[3], the plurality of incoming sample j may be of medical imaging).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Verma further discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teng et al. (“Wald-Kernel: learning to aggregate information for sequential inference”), provided by the applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Teng discloses:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (see section 1, computer), wherein
the at least one processor sequentially acquires a plurality of elements included in sequential data (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, sequential testing data {x1, x2, …});
the at least one processor calculates, based on two or more of the plurality of elements, indicators indicating which one of a plurality of classes the plurality of respective elements should belong to (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, calculating indicators k(xt, xc) used for classifying the sequential testing data);
the at least one processor calculates weights showing importance of the respective indicators of the plurality of respective elements (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, calculating kernel weights α);
the at least one processor weights the indicators of the plurality of respective elements by the corresponding weights and integrating the weighted indicators to calculate an integrated indicator indicating which one of the plurality of classes the sequential data should belong to (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, weighting the indicators (i.e., αck(xt,xc)) and integrating (i.e., Σ) the weighted indicators to calculate an integrated indicator log r^(xt)); and
the at least one processor classifies the sequential data into one of the classes based on the integrated indicator (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, classifying the sequential testing data into one of the classes H0 or H1 based on the integrated indicator log r^(xt)).
Regarding claim 5, Teng further discloses: wherein the integrated indicator includes an integrated score indicating a likelihood that the sequential data belongs to a certain one of the plurality of classes (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, classifying the sequential testing data according to the integrated indicator).
Regarding claim 6, Teng further discloses: wherein, in the classification of the sequential data, when there is a class in which the integrated score exceeds a predetermined threshold, the sequential data is classified into a class in which the integrated score exceeds the threshold (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, thresholding the integrated indicator for the classification).
Regarding claim 9, Teng further discloses:
wherein in the calculation of the indicators, the at least one processor stores at least the element acquired in the past (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, predetermined kernel centers are inherently stored for using in the algorithms); and
the at least one processor calculates, when an element of the sequential data has been newly acquired, the indicator for the element that has been newly acquired based on the element hat has been newly acquired and the stored element that has been acquired in the past (see algorithms 1-2 in section 3.3, calculating indicators for the sequential testing data based on the predetermined kernel centers and the sequential testing data).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Teng discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1 in view of Teng).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of van Uitert et al. (USPAPN 2010/0183210).
Regarding claim 14, Verma discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 13), however, does not disclose: wherein the information processing apparatus classifies the sequential data into any one of the classes indicating the presence of absence of a cancerous site of the medical information (i.e., Verma discloses classifying medical imaging, and does not specify that the classification includes the presence/absence of cancer).
In a similar field of endeavor of image analysis, van Uitert discloses: wherein the information processing apparatus classifies the sequential data into any one of the classes indicating the presence of absence of a cancerous site of the medical information (see para [70], weighted probabilities of features belonging in classes are used for classifying cancer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Verma with van Uitert, and provide integrated weighted likelihoods for classification of medical imaging, as disclosed by Verma, wherein the classification is made regarding cancer, as disclosed by van Uitert, for the purpose of improving cancer classification performance (see van Uitert para [6]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose the subject matter of claims 10 and 11, however, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as stated above. These claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and further amended to overcome the 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamazaki et al. (USPAPN 2014/0219518) also discloses integrating weighted likelihoods for classification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SJ PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675