DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary amendment
2. The claim amendments filed on 11/12/2024 under preliminary amendment have been considered and have been entered. Therefore, claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Abstract
3. The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable for examination purposes.
Oath Declaration
4. The Oath complies with all the requirements set forth in MPEP 602 and therefore is accepted.
Drawings
5. The drawings received on 11/12/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO- 1449 is signed and attached hereto.
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.
7. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1, the claim is directed to a "process" and thus directed to a statutory category
At Step 2A, Prong One, the claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
"Calculating, for respective ones of a plurality of errors included in the target data or for respective ones of attributes of the plurality of errors, corresponding degrees of influence that the respective ones of the plurality of errors exert on an evaluation index of a machine learning model," as drafted, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Similarly, the limitation of “determining data to be corrected in the target data on the basis of the degrees of influence calculated in the calculation process,” as drafted, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites the following additional elements:
The elements” of “A correction data determination apparatus,” calculation process,” and “determination process” are generic computer components and in this case are used as a tool to keep information to calculate a final result and do not import any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, which do not provide integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claims 9 and 10 are similar to claim 1 and are also rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 1. Dependent claims 2-8 fail to remedy the exception by integrating it into a practical application or adding elements that amount to significantly more than the exception – the process steps all still comprise mathematical concepts. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-10 are found to be allowable over the prior art. The claims will be allowed if the applicant overcomes the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per claim 1: The prior arts of record taken singly or in combination fail to teach, anticipate, suggest, or render obvious the following limitations. Particularly the prior art (US 2020/0210856 A1 by Vengalayapalli Kichagari) teaches “A correction data determination apparatus comprising: at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: an acquisition process for acquiring target data.” See abstract, and paragraphs [0133]-[0136], and Fig. 6. The prior arts however are not concerned with and do not teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious “a calculation process for calculating, for respective ones of a plurality of errors included in the target data or for respective ones of attributes of the plurality of errors, corresponding degrees of influence that the respective ones of the plurality of errors exert on an evaluation index of a machine learning model; and a determination process for determining data to be corrected in the target data on the basis of the degrees of influence calculated in the calculation process,” as recited in the independent claim 1. Consequently, claims 1 is/are allowed over the prior arts. Independent claims 9 and 10 include similar limitations of independent claim 1. Therefore, are allowed for similar reasons. Dependent claims 2-8 is/are depend from independent claim 1 and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are allowed as well. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Examiner Notes
9. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
10. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112