The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 1 April 2024. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 16-29.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-15 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-15,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 10,
Step 1: The claim recites a process / machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites: “converting a plurality of words included in the obtained corpus into embedding vectors; calculating similarities between the respective converted embedding vectors and an embedding vector indicating the target infectious disease; extracting an embedding vector of which the calculated similarity is higher than a predetermined first threshold value, for each time section; …calculating a correlation coefficient between the obtained first time series data and second time series data indicating the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease over time; and generating a word corresponding to the first time series data of which the calculated correlation coefficient is higher than a predetermined second threshold value as a keyword for each time section” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. . That is, the steps of “converting”, “calculating”, “extracting”, “generating”, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining a document including a target infectious disease as a corpus for each of a plurality of time sections;… obtaining first time series data indicating a search volume, over time, of a word corresponding to the embedding vector extracted for each time section’, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of (a) “A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining a document including a target infectious disease as a corpus for each of a plurality of time sections;… obtaining first time series data indicating a search volume, over time, of a word corresponding to the embedding vector extracted for each time section’, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). 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, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-9 /11-15 are dependent on claim 1 / 10, and include all the limitations of claim 1 / 10. Therefore, claims 2-9 /11-15 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the converting of the plurality of words included in the obtained corpus into the embedding vectors and the calculating of the similarities are performed by a Word2Vec algorithm” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3 / 11, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the calculating of the correlation coefficient includes: interpolating missing values of the first time series data and the second time series data; normalizing the first time series data and the second time series data; calculating correlation coefficients between the first time series data and the second time series data for each of a plurality of sliding windows; and determining a maximum value of the calculated correlation coefficients as the correlation coefficient between the first time series data and the second time series data” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the normalizing of the first time series data and the second time series data is performed by a min-max algorithm” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5 / 12, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the generating of the word corresponding to the first time series data of which the calculated correlation coefficient is higher than the predetermined second threshold value as the keyword for each time section includes: calculating a p-value of the calculated correlation coefficient when the calculated correlation coefficient is higher than the second threshold value; and generating a word corresponding to the first time series data of which the calculated p-value is lower than a predetermined third threshold value as the keyword for each time section” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the generating of the word corresponding to the first time series data of which the calculated correlation coefficient is higher than the predetermined second threshold value as the keyword for each time section further includes determining a point in time when the correlation coefficient calculated within each time section is highest for the generated keyword” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites additional limitation of “further comprising training an infectious disease prediction model using the generated keyword”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “further comprising training an infectious disease prediction model using the generated keyword”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (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.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the infectious disease prediction model is implemented as a regression model, and the training of the infectious disease prediction model includes regularizing a regularizer of the infectious disease prediction mode” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9 / 15, the claim recites further limitation of “the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease being predicted …” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
the claim recites additional limitation of “displaying the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease on a user terminal…”, “…inputting a keyword generated for a period input by a user”, which is which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “displaying the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease on a user terminal…”, “…inputting a keyword generated for a period input by a user”, which is which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2016.05(g)). 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 courts have found similar case not eligible, e.g. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “…the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease being predicted…”, which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional limitation of: (a) “training an infectious disease prediction model using the generated keyword”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “displaying the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease on a user terminal, the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease being predicted by inputting a keyword generated for a period input by a user to the infectious disease prediction model”, which is which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of (a) “training an infectious disease prediction model using the generated keyword”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “displaying the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease on a user terminal, the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease being predicted by inputting a keyword generated for a period input by a user to the infectious disease prediction model”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2016.05(g)). 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 courts have found similar case not eligible, e.g. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites additional limitation of “displaying the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease on the user terminal includes an operation of displaying the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease for a region input by the user on the user terminal”, which is which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input and/or post-solution data output )MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “displaying the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease on the user terminal includes an operation of displaying the number of confirmed cases of the target infectious disease for a region input by the user on the user terminal”, which is which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2016.05(g)). 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 courts have found similar case not eligible, e.g. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-15.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 1 April 2024, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific process / structure of using times series word embedding vector similarity calculation for infectious disease prediction.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1 and 15.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Anushiravani et al., US-PGPUB NO.20200388287A1 [hereafter Anushiravani] teaches using AI model for health data prediction. However Anushiravani does not teach the specific process / structure of using times series word embedding vector similarity calculation for infectious disease prediction.
Haghighi et al., US-PGPUB NO.20230281805A1 [hereafter Haghighi] teaches using ML models for medical data processing. However Haghighidoes not teach the specific process / structure of using times series word embedding vector similarity calculation for infectious disease prediction.
Li et al., US-PATENT NO.11875882B1 [hereafter Li] teaches disease prediction with ML models. However Li does not teach the specific process / structure of using times series word embedding vector similarity calculation for infectious disease prediction.
Wu et al., “Deep transformer models for time series forecasting: the influenza prevalence case”, arXiv: 2001.08317v1 [cs.LG] 23 Jan 2020 [hereafter Wu] teaches using time series prediction for flu using ML models. However Wu does not teach the specific process / structure of using times series word embedding vector similarity calculation for infectious disease prediction.
Ruan et al., “Representation learning for clinical time series prediction tasks in electronic health records”, BMC medical information and decision making 2019, 19 (Suppl 8): 259, 2019 [hereafter Ruan] teaches clinical time series prediction with statistical learning. However Ruan does not teach the specific process / structure of using times series word embedding vector similarity calculation for infectious disease prediction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights