DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the above identified application filed 3/4/2024. The application contains claims 1-7, all examined and rejected.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement with references submitted 3/4/2024, has been considered and entered into the file.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
While independent claims 1, 6 and 7 are each directed to a statutory category, it recites a series of steps which appears to be directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) 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. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. 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 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include certain methods of organizing human activities; a mental processes; and mathematical concepts, (2019 PEG)
STEP 1.
Per Step 1, the claims are determined to include machine, process, and manufacture as in independent Claims 1, 6, and 7, and in the therefrom dependent claims. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
At step 2A, prong 1, The invention is directed to steps which is akin to Mathematical concept (see Alice), As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“estimating a Koopman operator from time-series data composed of a plurality of elements by using the time-series data as an input”, “estimating a phase model representing collective vibration of the plurality of elements and an interaction between the elements using the Koopman operator” (mathematical concept).
The claim recites additional elements as
“An estimation apparatus comprising: a processor: and a memory that includes instructions. which when executed. cause the processor to execute” (“Using a computer as a tool to do mathematical concept”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"). Thus, under Step 2A of the Mayo framework, the Examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B.
Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" (WURC) in the related arts.
The instant application includes in Claim 1 additional steps to those deemed to be abstract idea(s).
When taken the steps individually, these steps are:
““An estimation apparatus comprising: a processor: and a memory that includes instructions. which when executed. cause the processor to execute” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mathematical concept” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
In the instant case, Claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as receiving, and extracting are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for analyzing model operations or updating the model that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves.
Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically
recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device that is recited in an abstract level and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
Claim 7 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, and “memory and a processor” configured to perform the same method as set forth in claim 1, the added element of “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, and “memory and a processor” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, and “memory and a processor” is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claim 7 is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above.
Independent claims 6 and 7 are the same analogy and rejected using similar analysis as claim 1.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
The dependent claims, when considered individually and as a whole, likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim.
claims 2 disclose “estimating of the phase model includes solving a first optimization problem by a gradient method using the Koopman operator; recursively solving a second optimization problem a predetermined number of times using solutions of the first optimization problem and the Koopman operator; and estimating the phase model using the solutions of the first optimization problem and solutions of the second optimization problem” (mathematical concept). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea, claims 3 disclose
PNG
media_image1.png
433
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(mathematical concept). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea, claims 4 disclose
PNG
media_image2.png
373
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
154
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(mathematical concept). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea, claims 5 disclose “the estimating a of the phase model includes estimating the phase model configured by the frequency w and a phase coupling function by approximating the phase coupling function using the solutions
PNG
media_image4.png
30
52
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and u1 of the first optimization problem and the solutions
PNG
media_image5.png
38
106
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of the second optimization problem. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims which impose additional limitations also fail to claim patent eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 ; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims for the other statutory classes are similarly analyzed.
For at least these reasons, the claimed inventions of each of dependent claims 2-5,are directed or indirect to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “MODERN KOOPMAN THEORY FOR DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS” Published 2/2021 [hereinafter D1].
With regard to Claim 1,
D1 teach an estimation apparatus comprising:
a processor: and a memory that includes instructions. which when executed. cause the processor to execute (P. 24, 3.2.5, “Because of the computational burden of computing the DMD on high-resolution data, several advances have been made to accelerate DMD in streaming applications and with parallelized algorithms”, P. 43, “The overlap between consecutive windows can be exploited to compute a more accurate global reconstruction [95], and to reduce the computational effort required to compute the DMD”):
estimating a Koopman operator from time-series data composed of a plurality of elements by using the time-series data as an input (P. 3, “a tremendous amount of effort has gone into characterizing the Koopman operator and approximating its spectral decomposition from measurement data”, P. 18, “DMD is fundamentally a data-driven algorithm, and the matrix A is approximated from a collection of snapshot pairs of the system, {(x(tk),x(tk)}m k=1, where tk = tk+∆t”, P.19, “in exact DMD, the times tk”); and
estimating a phase model representing collective vibration of the plurality of elements and an interaction between the elements using the Koopman operator (P. 12, 2.2.1, “Level sets of the argument (angle) provide a cyclic foliation of the domain, acting as isochrons [284], i.e., collections of initial conditions that converge to the origin with a common phase. We will revisit the concepts of isochrons and isostables as tools for nonlinear reduction of order, in particular as a foundation for understanding the synchronization and control of oscillators”, P. 32, “Papers [354, 357] apply this concept to synchronization of oscillators by extending the phase response curves using isostables and isochrons computed as Koopman eigenfunctions. Notably, these developments demonstrate that Koopman eigenfunctions are a viable and practical path both in analytic [356] and in data-driven approaches [355] to synchronization of oscillators”).
With regard to Claim 6,
Claim 6 is similar I scope to claim 1; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 7,
Claim 7 is similar I scope to claim 1; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale. In addition D1 teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon. which when executed. cause a computer including a memory and a processor to execute the estimation method (P. 24, 3.2.5, “Because of the computational burden of computing the DMD on high-resolution data, several advances have been made to accelerate DMD in streaming applications and with parallelized algorithms”, P. 43, “The overlap between consecutive windows can be exploited to compute a more accurate global reconstruction [95], and to reduce the computational effort required to compute the DMD”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “MODERN KOOPMAN THEORY FOR DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS” Published 2/2021 [hereinafter D1] in view of “Optimal construction of Koopman eigenfunctions for prediction and control” Published 5/2020 [hereinafter D2].
With regard to Claim 2,
D1 teach the estimation apparatus according to claim 1.
D1 does not explicitly teach wherein estimating of the phase model includes solving a first optimization problem by a gradient method using the Koopman operator;
recursively solving a second optimization problem a predetermined number of times using solutions of the first optimization problem and the Koopman operator; and estimating the phase model using the solutions of the first optimization problem and solutions of the second optimization problem
D2 teach wherein estimating of the phase model includes solving a first optimization problem by a gradient method using the Koopman operator (D2, P. 5, 2.1, “The goal is to predict the evolution of a quantity of interest … The distinctive feature of this work is the requirement that the predictor constructed be a linear dynamical system”, P. 19-20, “Crucial to this is the availability of an analytic expression for the gradient of (38) with respect to Λi … This allows us to evaluate … the gradient of p(Λi) with respect to the real and imaginary parts of the eigenvalues in Λi”, P. 29, 6.1, “the objective function (39) is minimized using local Newton-type algorithm implemented in Matlab’s fmincon, with analytic gradients computed using (40)”);
recursively solving a second optimization problem a predetermined number of times using solutions of the first optimization problem and the Koopman operator (D2, P.23, “we follow a two-step procedure, where we first construct eigenfunctions for the uncontrolled system … Step 1 … using the procedure described in Section 4 , obtaining also the matrices A and C”, P. 24, “Step2– matrix B In order to obtain the matrix B we perform a regression on the controlled data set (47). The quantity to be minimized is a multi-step prediction error … this is due to the fact that the matrices A and C are already known and fixed at this step …”); and
estimating the phase model using the solutions of the first optimization problem and solutions of the second optimization problem (Abstract, “Once a predictor for the uncontrolled part of the system is obtained in this way, the incorporation of control is done through a multi-step prediction error minimization, carried out by a simple linear least-squares regression. The predictor so obtained is in the form of a linear controlled dynamical system”, P. 23, “As in [12], the goal is to construct a predictor in the form of a controlled linear dynamical system … (46a)”).
D1 and D2 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of data driven modeling using Koopman operator. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 resulting in resolutions as disclosed by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify D1 as described above to improve estimation accuracy and capability of handling long term predictions. This is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Examiner notes
Examiner note that claims 3-5 disclose an explicit mathematical formulas. The examiner was not able to find a teaching that disclose the claimed mathematical formula. D1 teach the ability to estimate Koopman operator from time series data to create phase models representing the synchronization of coupled oscillators. D2 disclose a mechanism to construct these model utilized gradient based optimization method to minimize projection error and recursively solving a multistep prediction problem. However, neither teaching disclose the claimed mathematical formulas. Further consideration/search will be provided upon receiving the applicant’s response.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
“A Convex Optimization Approach to Learning Koopman Operators” that disclose optimization framework to identify Koopman operators from data.
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD whose telephone number is (303)297-4285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-6:00pm MT.
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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights