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 Status
The status of claims 1-4 and 6-10 is:
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states “acquiring acquire sensor information” in line 3 and “extracting generate a single feature” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required. For the sake of examination, the claim will be read as saying “acquiring sensor information” and “extracting a single feature.”
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states “acquiring acquire sensor information” in line 3 and “extracting generate a single feature” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required. For the sake of examination, the claim will be read as saying “acquiring sensor information” and “extracting a single feature.”
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 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the BRI of “a computer readable medium” includes software per se. Examiner suggests amending the claim language to state “a non-transitory computer readable medium.”
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 4 and 8. Each of the independent claims 1 and 4 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106). Independent claim 8 is not directed to a category of eligible subject matter as addressed above, but even if it was, it would still be rejected under the analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Independent claims 1, 4, and 8 are directed to acquiring sensor information of a plurality of sensors including at least two types of sensors; extracting a single feature value from the sensor information of the plurality of sensors; and estimating by taking the single feature value as an input and estimate which of the plurality of sensors is to be focused on using a model utilizing a self-attention mechanism. An individual can acquire sensor information of a plurality of sensors including at least two types of sensors and extracting a single feature value from the sensor information of the plurality of sensors as it is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering), and can estimate by taking the single feature value as an input and estimate which of the plurality of sensors is to be focused on using a mental model. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional elements
Independent claim 4 claims processing circuitry. Independent claim 1 does not have any additional elements. Independent claim 8 claims a computer readable medium.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
The above-identified elements do not integrate the judicial into a practical application nor do they suggest an improvement.
The additional elements of processing circuitry and a computer readable medium amounts to merely using generic computer hardware or components as a tool to perform the claimed mental process.
Using a general purpose computer to apply a judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine and therefore, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Further, the act of acquiring data is mere data gathering which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding independent claims 1, 4, and 8, as noted above, the additional elements are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves and other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 4, and 8 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, 6, and 9 recite extracting a feature value of each sensor based on the sensor information of the plurality of sensors, embedding identification information of each sensor in the feature value of each sensor to generate an information-embedded feature value corresponding to each sensor, and integrating a plurality of information-embedded feature values corresponding to the plurality of sensors respectively to generate the single feature value. The features of claims 2, 6, and 9 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the data from being acquired or mentally analyzed as recited in claims 1, 4, and 8 respectively. Accordingly, claims 2, 6, and 9 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 7, and 10 recite wherein estimating an event corresponding to the sensor information. The features of claims 3, 7, and 10 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the data from being acquired or mentally analyzed as recited in claims 1, 4, and 8 respectively. Accordingly, claims 3, 7, and 10 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (Zhu, H., Wang, Z., Shi, Y., Hua, Y., Xu, G., & Deng, L. (2020). Multimodal Fusion Method Based on Self‐Attention Mechanism. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2020(1), 8843186., hereinafter “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses an estimation method comprising:
acquiring sensor information of a plurality of sensors including at least two types of sensors (Zhu Fig. 1: visual, audio, and language data from different sensors);
extracting a single feature value from the sensor information of the plurality of sensors (Zhu Fig. 1 description: “the unimodal representations zv, za, and zl as input to MF (multimodal fusion), which were obtained by passing the unimodal inputs xv, xa, and xl into three subnetworks f v, f a, and f l, respectively”); and
estimating by taking the single feature value as an input and estimate which of the plurality of sensors is to be focused on using a model utilizing a self-attention mechanism (Zhu Page 4: “The unimodal representation enters the fusion module and generates a unimodal representation with new weights through a self-attention mechanism. Observing our network model, we do not need to directly calculate the input tensor Z, we first decompose zv, za, and z1 in low rank to get zv, za, and z1,then assign the corresponding weights Wv, Wa, W1 to each factor, and finally sum them with the weights, which greatly reduces the complexity of our model and reduces the calculation pressure. Finally, the input tensor passing through the self-attention module generates the output tensor in the fusion module, which is the final output result that can be used for classification”, the weights represent the focus on the sensors).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu discloses the method, wherein estimating an event corresponding to the sensor information (Zhu Fig. 1 description: “The output will be multimodal representation, which can be used for applying classification task”, the output is the estimating of an event).
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(s) 4, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Liu et al. (WO 2022031232 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 4, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above, in combination with Liu’s teaching of processing circuitry (Liu [0034]: “According to one embodiment, an object recognition device is provided comprising a processor configured to perform one of the methods described above”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the processing circuitry as taught by Liu with the method of Zhu because the processing circuitry is required to operate the method. This motivation for the combination of Zhu and Liu is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above, in combination with Liu’s teaching of a computer readable medium storing instructions (Lui [0037] According to one embodiment, a computer-readable medium is provided including program instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform one of the methods described above”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the computer readable medium as taught by Liu with the method of Zhu because it would allow the method to be operated by any computing device. This motivation for the combination of Zhu and Liu is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 3 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 6, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDAN KEUP whose telephone number is (703)756-4578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/AIDAN KEUP/ Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666