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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 03/22/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method, claims 11-19 are drawn to a computing device and claim 20 is drawn to a computer-readable storage medium therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1 and 10 are nonverbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites: An attribute inference method for co-training data, applicable to a center server for model distributed co-training, the method comprising:
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample, wherein the share model is a neural network model;
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, wherein the first gradient is a gradient that is calculated relative to a model parameter during model training by the participating device;
reconstructing a deep feature of the sample data based on the first gradient by using the share model, wherein the deep feature is the variable extracted by the share model;
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates; and
inferring a data attribute of an individual local training sample of the participating device based on the trained attribute inference model fattr and the reconstructed deep feature
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, reciting a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). As well as a mental concept performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper" (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
“[…] wherein the first gradient is a gradient that is calculated relative to a model parameter during model training by the participating device”
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, as a form of a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). For example, the limitation recites a “first gradient”, which is a result of a mathematical derivative. Thus, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) identifies mathematical calculations as mathematical concepts.
reconstructing a deep feature of the sample data based on the first gradient by using the share model, wherein the deep feature is the variable extracted by the share model
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, as a form of a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Reconstruction based on gradients and a neural network involves mathematical operations and optimization.
“inferring a data attribute of an individual local training sample of the participating device based on the trained attribute inference model fattr and the reconstructed deep feature”
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation or judgement, and or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, one can look at available information (the “deep feature”, viewed broadly as characteristics or descriptive information). Evaluate that information and reach a conclusion about an attribute. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
An attribute inference method for co-training data, applicable to a center server for model distributed co-training, the method comprising:
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample, wherein the share model is a neural network model, as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, […] as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as mere data gathering (e.g., pre-solution activity, a step of obtaining information). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates, as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
An attribute inference method for co-training data, applicable to a center server for model distributed co-training, the method comprising:
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample, wherein the share model is a neural network model, as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, […] as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as mere data gathering (e.g., pre-solution activity, a step of obtaining information). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates, as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 recites: A computing device, comprising: a processor, a memory, a communication interface and a communication bus; wherein the processor, the memory and the communication bus communicate with each other via the communication bus; and
the memory is configured to store at least one executable instruction, wherein the at least one executable instruction, when loaded and executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of:
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample;
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, wherein the first gradient is a gradient that is calculated relative to a model parameter during model training by the participating device;
reconstructing a deep feature of the sample data based on the first gradient by using the share model;
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates; and
inferring a data attribute of an individual local training sample of the participating device based on the trained attribute inference model fattr and the reconstructed deep feature
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, reciting a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). As well as a mental concept performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper" (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 11 recites in part:
“[…] wherein the first gradient is a gradient that is calculated relative to a model parameter during model training by the participating device”
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, as a form of a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). For example, the limitation recites a “first gradient”, which is a result of a mathematical derivative. Thus, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) identifies mathematical calculations as mathematical concepts.
“reconstructing a deep feature of the sample data based on the first gradient by using the share model”
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, as a form of a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Reconstruction based on gradients and a neural network involves mathematical operations and optimization.
“inferring a data attribute of an individual local training sample of the participating device based on the trained attribute inference model fattr and the reconstructed deep feature”
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation or judgement, and or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, one can look at available information (the “deep feature”, viewed broadly as characteristics or descriptive information). Evaluate that information and reach a conclusion about an attribute. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 11 recites in part:
A computing device, comprising: a processor, a memory, a communication interface and a communication bus; wherein the processor, the memory and the communication bus communicate with each other via the communication bus, as drafted, amount to claims reciting generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
the memory is configured to store at least one executable instruction, wherein the at least one executable instruction, when loaded and executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of, as drafted, amount to claims reciting generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample, as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, […] as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as mere data gathering (e.g., pre-solution activity, a step of obtaining information). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates, as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 11 recites in part:
A computing device, comprising: a processor, a memory, a communication interface and a communication bus; wherein the processor, the memory and the communication bus communicate with each other via the communication bus, as drafted, amount to claims reciting generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
the memory is configured to store at least one executable instruction, wherein the at least one executable instruction, when loaded and executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of, as drafted, amount to claims reciting generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample, as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, […] as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as mere data gathering (e.g., pre-solution activity, a step of obtaining information). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates, as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Regarding claim 20
Claim 20 recites: A computer-readable storage medium, storing at least one executable instruction; wherein the executable instruction, when loaded and executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of:
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample;
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, wherein the first gradient is a gradient that is calculated relative to a model parameter during model training by the participating device;
reconstructing a deep feature of the sample data based on the first gradient by using the share model;
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates; and
inferring a data attribute of an individual local training sample of the participating device based on the trained attribute inference model fattr and the reconstructed deep feature
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, reciting a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). As well as a mental concept performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper" (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 20 recites in part:
“[…] wherein the first gradient is a gradient that is calculated relative to a model parameter during model training by the participating device”
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, as a form of a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). For example, the limitation recites a “first gradient”, which is a result of a mathematical derivative. Thus, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) identifies mathematical calculations as mathematical concepts.
“reconstructing a deep feature of the sample data based on the first gradient by using the share model”
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, as a form of a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Reconstruction based on gradients and a neural network involves mathematical operations and optimization.
inferring a data attribute of an individual local training sample of the participating device based on the trained attribute inference model fattr and the reconstructed deep feature
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation or judgement, and or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, one can look at available information (the “deep feature”, viewed broadly as characteristics or descriptive information). Evaluate that information and reach a conclusion about an attribute. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 20 recites in part:
A computer-readable storage medium, storing at least one executable instruction; wherein the executable instruction, when loaded and executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of, as drafted, amount to claims reciting generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample, as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, […] as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as mere data gathering (e.g., pre-solution activity, a step of obtaining information). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates, as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 20 recites in part:
A computer-readable storage medium, storing at least one executable instruction; wherein the executable instruction, when loaded and executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of, as drafted, amount to claims reciting generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
distributing a pre-trained share model to a participating device in distributed co-training, such that the participating device iteratively trains and iteratively updates the share model by using batch data of a local sample, as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
acquiring a first gradient uploaded by the participating device, […] as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as mere data gathering (e.g., pre-solution activity, a step of obtaining information). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
extracting a deep feature of assistance data with an attribute label by using the share model, and training an attribute inference model fattr, wherein the share model is acquired by co-training and a plurality of iterative updates, as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are dependent on claims 1 and 11 respectively, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Claim(s) 2 and 12 incorporates the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 respectively, recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 incorporates the rejection of claims 2 and 12 respectively, recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 incorporates the rejection of claims 3 and 13 respectively, recites a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 incorporates the rejection of claims 4 and 14 respectively, recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 incorporates the rejection of claims 5 and 15 respectively, recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 incorporates the rejection of claims 6 and 16 respectively, recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 incorporates the rejection of claims 7 and 17 respectively, recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 incorporates the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 respectively, recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 10 incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1, recites a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation or judgement, and or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, one can look at available information (the “deep feature”, viewed broadly as characteristics or descriptive information). Evaluate that information and reach a conclusion about an attribute. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 have been found to include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVEL HONORE whose telephone number is (703)756-1179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
EVEL HONORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2142
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights