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 response to the application filed on 10/03/2024.
Claims 1-19 are pending in which claims 1, 4-9, 12-14 and 17-19 stand rejected, claims 2-3, 10-11 and 15-16 are canceled, claim 19 is newly added and are pending in this Office Action. Claims 1, 9 and 14 are independent claims.
Foreign Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed JAPAN Application No. 2023-194835, filed 11/16/2023, under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks filed 10/03/2025 have been fully and respectfully considered. As per the Examiner’s responses, please refer to below discussions.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argued that
“”amended claim 1 recites a processor configured to
"extract data as an extraction result Ri from the partial target array information Di, in which one or more pieces of data each assigned a new index are stored, using the partial index array information Ki where the subtraction process has been executed, wherein the one or more processors execute the extraction process to extract the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N, and
output data arranged vertically in R1, R2, ... , RN order."
Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application of any alleged exception, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test.””; and the Applicant further argued that
“”an additional element or combination of elements "[adds] a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application," has been found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.””, the Examiner respectfully submits that,
The above amendment mainly comprising steps of “extracting data” and “outputting data”. Extracting data is to collect data. The limitations are mere data gathering and outputting data, recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea. Consequently, the claim is ineligible.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, the claim recites “execute, for i = 1 to N, a subtraction process to subtract
PNG
media_image1.png
24
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
from the indices stored in the generated partial index array information K so that, after the subtraction process, …”.
The K in the “the generated partial index array information K” seems to be a typographical error.
Further as per claims 1, 9 and 14, the claims recite “execute, for i = 1 to N, a subtraction process to subtract
PNG
media_image1.png
24
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
from the indices stored in the generated partial index array information Ki so that, after the subtraction process, the indices in Ki fall within a range from 0 to (di-1) and are stored in ascending order;”. Here d0 may be assigned a value of 0, however, the range from 0 to (di-1) seems to be a typographical error of d0 to (di-1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As per claims 1, 9 and 14, the claims recite “execute, for i = 1 to N, a subtraction process to subtract
PNG
media_image1.png
24
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
from the indices stored in the generated partial index array information Ki so that, after the subtraction process, the indices in Ki fall within a range from 0 to (di-1) and are stored in ascending order;”.
The limitation seems subtracting a single numerical
PNG
media_image1.png
24
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
from a series of numerical, the indices. It is ambiguous whether it is subtracting
PNG
media_image2.png
37
103
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as an index or as a single summed numerical from the indices
PNG
media_image3.png
24
133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, or subtracting the indices d0 to (di-1) from the indices
PNG
media_image3.png
24
133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
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, 4-9, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 14, similarly and each respectively recites
an index array conversion device comprising: a memory storing software instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions to: perform: [below operations];
an index array conversion method, implemented by a processor, comprising: [below operations (or steps, hereafter)]; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing an index array conversion program for causing a computer to execute [below operations]:
executing, for i=1 to N, a generation process to generate partial index array information K.sub.i,
where indices in a range Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1(d.sub.t) to Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i(d.sub.t)(d.sub.0=0) are stored in ascending order,
using index array information where a plurality of indices are stored in ascending order and partial target array information D.sub.1, D.sub.2, . . . , D.sub.N,
each indicating lengths d.sub.1, d.sub.2, . . . , d.sub.N (where d.sub.1 to d.sub.N are integers of 1 or more) generated by dividing target array information into N parts (N is an integer of 2 or more), containing data each assigned the index; and
executing, for i=1 to N, a subtraction process to subtract Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1(d.sub.t) from the indices stored in the generated partial index array information K.sub.i so that, after the subtraction process, the indices in Ki fall within a range from Oto (di - 1) and are stored in ascending order; and
extracting data as an extraction result Ri from the partial target array information Di, in which one or more pieces of data each assigned a new index are stored, using the partial index array information Ki where the subtraction process has been executed,
wherein the one or more processors execute the extraction process to extract the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N, and output data arranged vertically in R1, R2, ... , RN order;
extracting the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N: and
outputting data arranged vertically in R1, R2, ... , RN order.
a). In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claims 1, 9 and 14 similarly recite two limitations (or “elements” hereafter):
generating partial index array information;
subtracting Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1(d.sub.t) from the indices;
extracting data as an extraction result Ri from the partial target array information;
extracting the extraction result and
outputting data arranged vertically.
As claim texts drafted by a set of very minimal two limitations (or elements) of each of the three categories, generating partial index array information; and subtracting Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1(d.sub.t) from the indices, are merely a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), but for the recitation of processor(s), a memory and a computer readable storage medium being implicitly suggested as a generic computing components, including:
“executing, for i=1 to N, a generation process to generate partial index array information K.sub.i”, is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation and evaluation performed in human mind. In the above described activities, for example, book keeping personal or family expenses on daily, weekly, monthly or annually basis is a similar task that may need the help of using paper and pencil;
“executing, for i=1 to N, a subtraction process to subtract Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1(d.sub.t) from the indices stored in the generated partial index array information K.sub.i so that, after the subtraction process, the indices in Ki fall within a range from Oto (di - 1) and are stored in ascending order; and
“extracting data as an extraction result Ri from the partial target array information Di, in which one or more pieces of data each assigned a new index are stored, using the partial index array information Ki where the subtraction process has been executed” is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of mathematics, including mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations”.;
“wherein the one or more processors execute the extraction process to extract the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N, and output data arranged vertically in R1, R2, ... , RN order”, As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as book keeping personal or family expenses as example above, activities include extracting items from bills, listing and numbering the items and using indices to the items, is a task may need the help of using paper and pencil, as described above in claims 1, 9 and 14 above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible;
“extracting the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N: and
outputting data arranged vertically in R1, R2, ... , RN order”, As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as book keeping personal or family expenses as example above, activities include extracting items from bills, listing and numbering the items and using indices to the items, is a task may need the help of using paper and pencil, as described above in claims 1, 9 and 14 above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
With respect to the above process of generating partial index array information K.sub.i”, the process is further qualified or refined by:
“where indices in a range Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1(d.sub.t) to Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i(d.sub.t)(d.sub.0=0) are stored in ascending order” which is merely a routine and common mathematical formulas or equations, and calculations as being mathematical concepts of abstract ideas and may be mentally evaluated and judged as mental processes of abstract ideas,
“using index array information where a plurality of indices are stored in ascending order and partial target array information D.sub.1, D.sub.2, . . . , D.sub.N” is clearly a mathematical relationships and may be mentally evaluated and judged as mental processes of abstract ideas,
“each indicating lengths d.sub.1, d.sub.2, . . . , d.sub.N (where d.sub.1 to d.sub.N are integers of 1 or more) generated by dividing target array information into N parts (N is an integer of 2 or more)” is simply a routine of mathematical calculations and may be mentally evaluated and judged as mental processes of abstract ideas, and
“containing data each assigned the index” is merely a mentally observation and evaluation processes of abstract ideas.
None of the qualifying or refining conditions to the limitations as included and analyzed in the above descriptions provides nothing that precludes the step from practically being conceptually performed in the mind by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion or from being grouped as mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
With respect to all limitations as recited, all can be similarly interpreted as expenses book keeping, the limitations as a whole clearly belongs to a group of abstract ideas as mental process as concepts can be performed in the human mind and also belongs, as whole, a group of abstract ideas as mathematical concepts.
As such, the limitation is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement and mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations that can be performed in human mind optionally with help of paper and pencil. Reciting of processor(s), memory and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, all are generic computer components, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being conceptually performed in the mind.
Accordingly, other than reciting “a processor”, “processor(s)” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, the limitations are mental and mathematical processes as concepts can be performed by human mind through observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement. With the help of list on songs on paper and pencil, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being conceptually performed in the mind.
The claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” (thinking) and mathematical processes that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human” to be an abstract idea, as the Examiner utilized an example of expenses book keeping as a similar activity.
Therefore, it is the steps that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas that the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ are open to all.
Accordingly, the claims 1,9 and 14 recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “processor(s)”, “a memory” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”. The additional components suggested as generic computer components even being recited as additional limitations, however, do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, as the above detailed analysis on the two minimal limitations as abstract ideas that can be performed mentally in mind by human, without reciting any “additional element” to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The processes of generating partial index array information, subtracting Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1(d.sub.t) from the indices; extracting data as an extraction result Ri from the partial target array information; extracting the extraction result and outputting data arranged vertically such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, processor(s), a memory and computer readable storage medium for the processes. That is, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). Accordingly, even considering all the elements as additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
The claims 1, 9 and 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there is simply no additional elements adding to the already analyzed very few minimal steps of display. The steps, represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality, and in the context of the limitations reciting displaying that can be practically performed in the human mind and may be considered to fall within the mental process and mathematical concepts groupings.
As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites the limitation(s) “wherein the partial target array information D.sub.i to D.sub.N is stored in a distributed state in memory”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as the book keeping personal or family expenses as example above, activities include extracting items from bills, listing and numbering the items, using indices to the items and maintaining as notes in a notebook for making being available in later review, is a task may need the help of using paper and pencil, as described above in claims 1, 9 and 14 above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element, precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites the limitation(s) “wherein the partial target array information D.sub.i to D.sub.N is stored in a distributed state in memory”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as the book keeping personal or family expenses as example above, activities include extracting items from bills, listing and numbering the items, using indices to the items and maintaining as notes in a notebook for making being available in later review, is a task may need the help of using paper and pencil, as described above in claims 1, 9 and 14 above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element, precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 12 and 17 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the software instructions to generate a plurality of index array information by dividing index information composed of a plurality of index array information”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as the book keeping personal or family expenses as example above, activities include extracting items from bills, listing and numbering the items, using indices to the items, as similarly described in claims 1, 9 and 14 interpretations above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the limitation(s) “wherein the partial target array information D.sub.i to D.sub.N is stored in a distributed state in memory”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as the book keeping personal or family expenses as example above, activities include extracting items from bills, listing and numbering the items, using indices to the items and maintaining as notes in a notebook for making being available in later review, is a task may need the help of using paper and pencil, as described above in claims 1, 9 and 14 above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element, precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 13 and 18 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein the partial target array information D.sub.1 to D.sub.N is stored in a distributed state in memory”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as the book keeping personal or family expenses as example above, activities include extracting items from bills, listing and numbering the items, using indices to the items and maintaining as notes in a notebook for making being available in later review, is a task may need the help of using paper and pencil, as described above in claims 1, 9 and 14 above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element, precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites the limitation(s) “the index array conversion device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the software instructions to:
for i = 1 to N, when no indices in a range
PNG
media_image4.png
27
161
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(do = 0) are stored, generate the partial index array information Ki as empty and perform no subtraction process for the empty partial index array information Ki”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as the book keeping personal or family expenses as example above, activities include extracting items from bills, listing and numbering the items, using indices to the items and maintaining as notes in a notebook for making being available in later review, is a task may need the help of using paper and pencil, as described above in claims 1, 9 and 14 above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element, precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
In conclusion, the limitations of the claims 4-8, 12-13 and 17-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kubov et al.: "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA COMPRESSION AND DECOMPRESSION" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20230214367 A1, DATE PUBLISHED 2023-07-06; and DATE FILED 2022-01-05, hereafter "Kubov”), in view of
Iwashita; Hidetoshi: "INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION METHOD AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20160132272 A1, DATE PUBLISHED 2016-05-12; and DATE FILED 2015-10-20, hereafter "Iwashita”), and further in view of
Heasman et al.: "METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINATION OF TREATMENT THERAPEUTIC WINDOW, DETECTION, PREDICTION, AND CLASSIFICATION OF NEUROELECTRICAL, CARDIAC, AND/OR PULMONARY EVENTS, AND OPTIMIZATION OF TREATMENT ACCORDING TO THE SAME" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20230238100 A1, DATE PUBLISHED 2023-07-27; and DATE FILED 2023-01-24, hereafter " Heasman”).
As per claim 1, Kubov teaches an index array conversion device comprising:
a memory storing software instructions (See [0006], a system including one or more processors and memory storing executable instruction); and
one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions (See [0006], one or more processors and memory storing executable instructions that, as a result of being executed, cause the system to perform operations) to:
execute, for i=1 to N, a generation process to generate partial index array information K.sub.i (See Figs. 12A-12B and [0122]-[0123], an index distribution model 700 shows the index array IA (block 702) distributed into an index chunks “0” 710, the index chunk “1” 711,... and the index chunk “C” 712 respectively grouped with a data chunk “0” 730, a data chunk “1” 731,... and a data chunk “C” 732, formed by division of the data array DA, in a chunk “0” 740, a chunk “1” 741, and a chunk “C” 742. Here the index chunk teaches the partial index and data chunk teaches the partial index array information. Here the index array chunk teaches partial index array and the index array data chunk teaches partial index array information),
where indices in a range
PNG
media_image5.png
20
188
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1(d.sub.t) to Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i(d.sub.t)(d.sub.0=0)) are stored in ascending order (See [0100]-[0106], equation
PNG
media_image6.png
20
104
media_image6.png
Greyscale
reads on
PNG
media_image7.png
26
50
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and the equation
PNG
media_image8.png
26
182
media_image8.png
Greyscale
having
PNG
media_image9.png
16
12
media_image9.png
Greyscale
as i-1 and i reads on
PNG
media_image10.png
20
108
media_image10.png
Greyscale
).
Kubov does not explicitly teach using index array information where a plurality of indices are stored in ascending order and partial target array information D.sub.1, D.sub.2, . . . , D.sub.N.
However, Iwashita teaches using index array information where a plurality of indices are stored in ascending order and partial target array information D.sub.1, D.sub.2, . . . , D.sub.N (See [0104] and [0300], respective elements of a dimension to be divided are allocated to respective nodes in a node array in for example ascending order of index; and the detection unit 35 obtains a continuous data unit, i.e., communication data index range Jc=(jc[1], . . . , jc[Dc]) that corresponds to Ic, the number of dimensions Dc(0≦Dc≦D, Dc≦Uc) of Jc and size Lc of Ic. In this example, ic[u] is scalar ic1[u] or interval ic1[u]:ic2[u] (1≦u≦Uc). Here the index range of teaches the communication data teaches the partial target array information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s application was filed to combine the teaching of Iwashita with Kubov reference because Kubov is dedicated to data compression and decompression, and Iwashita is dedicated to the pieces of local data having been obtained by dividing global data shared by the plurality of information processing apparatuses and stores local data that is assigned to the information processing apparatus in the first storage area, and the combined teaching would have enabled Kubov to divide global data into smaller size of index array of data for allowing efficiently, quickly and at a low resource cost for compressing and decompressing large index array amount of data .
Kubov in view of Iwashita further teaches the following:
each indicating lengths d.sub.1, d.sub.2, . . . , d.sub.N (where d.sub.1 to d.sub.N are integers of 1 or more) generated by dividing target array information into N parts (N is an integer of 2 or more) (See [0122], pre-computing index reductions for each index chunk to reference the start of corresponding data in the data array DA and dividing the data array DA into corresponding chunks),
containing data each assigned the index (See Kubov: Fig. 1B, [0034] and [0071], an index tuple I and a data tuple D are accessed (step 122). Each element of the block index tuple I is assigned its index from the .Math.0,1, ..., 2.sup.BA - 1.Math. range (step 124).; and each element of the index tuple 322 is sequentially assigned its index from the range .Math.0, 1, 2, 3.Math., which in binary is .Math.00.sub.2, 01.sub.2, 10.sub.2, 11.sub.2.Math..); and
execute, for i=1 to N, a subtraction process to subtract from the indices stored in the generated partial index array information K.sub.i (See Iwashita: [0104] and [0300], respective elements of a dimension to be divided are allocated to respective nodes in a node array in for example ascending order of index; and the detection unit 35 obtains a continuous data unit, i.e., communication data index range Jc=(jc[1], . . . , jc[Dc]) that corresponds to Ic, the number of dimensions Dc(0≦Dc≦D, Dc≦Uc) of Jc and size Lc of Ic. In this example, ic[u] is scalar ic1[u] or interval ic1[u]:ic2[u] (1≦u≦Uc. Here obtaining range of indices reads on subtracting),
so that, after the subtraction process, the indices in Ki fall within a range from 0 to (di-1) (See the limitation specified a subset subtract Σ.sub.t=0.sup.i-1 (d.sub.t) subtracted from the set of K.sub.i and the reaming subset is clearly a subset of the of K.sub.i) and are stored in ascending order (See the sum value for i=1 to N for index array information K.sub.i gets increasing by K.sub.i as the I increases one each time).
Kubov in view of Iwashita does not explicitly teach “extracting data as an extraction result Ri from the partial target array information Di, in which one or more pieces of data each assigned a new index are stored, using the partial index array information Ki where the subtraction process has been executed;
wherein the one or more processors execute the extraction process to extract the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N;” and “extracting the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N; and outputting data arranged vertically in R1, R2, ... , RN order.”.
However, Heasman teaches the following:
extracting data as an extraction result Ri from the partial target array information Di, in which one or more pieces of data each assigned a new index are stored, using the partial index array information Ki where the subtraction process has been executed (See [0144] and [0142], a set of feature values 272 extracted from the sensor array data and may store sensor array data 262 received from the sensor array);
wherein the one or more processors execute the extraction process to extract the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N;” and “extracting the extraction result Ri for i = 1 to N (See [0149], the iomarkers extracted from the EEG data 262, the PPG data 267, the accelerometer data 264, the microphone data 266, the feature values 272, the user reports 268, and/or the classification results 274); and
outputting data arranged vertically in R1, R2, ... , RN order (See [0225] FIGS. 17A and 17B depict the first set of classification results 336 and the second set of classification results 348, resulting respectively from the output of the first trained AI model 330 and the second trained AI model 346. (The classification results 274 output by the static model 270 may be similar.) The classification results 336 and 248 may each include a set of events 370 classified as seizure events and a set of events 372 classified as non-seizure events.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s application was filed to combine the teaching of Heasman with Kubov in view of Iwashita reference because Kubov is dedicated to data compression and decompression, Iwashita is dedicated to the pieces of local data having been obtained by dividing global data shared by the plurality of information processing apparatuses and stores local data that is assigned to the information processing apparatus in the first storage area and Heasman is dedicated to monitoring various types of physiological activity in a subject, particular the disclosure relates to systems and methods for monitoring neurological activity in a subject and, more particularly, to detecting and classifying events occurring in the subject, and the combined teaching would have enabled Kubov in view of Iwashita to implement trained artificial intelligence (AI) models to detect, classify, and/or predict the global data into smaller size of index array of data for allowing efficiently, quickly and at a low resource cost for compressing and decompressing large index array amount of data .
As per claim 4, Kubov in view of Iwashita and further in view of Heasman teaches the index array conversion device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the software instructions to generate a plurality of index array information by dividing index information composed of a plurality of index array information (See Kubov: Figs. 12A-12B and [0123], a data distribution model 720 shows the index array IA (block 702) distributed into the index chunk “0” 710, the index chunk “1” 711,... and the index chunk “C” 712 respectively grouped with a data chunk “0” 730, a data chunk “1” 731,... and a data chunk “C” 732, formed by division of the data array DA, in a chunk “0” 740, a chunk “1” 741, and a chunk “C” 742. The index array is divided into three index and data chunks).
As per claim 5, Kubov in view of Iwashita and further in view of Heasman teaches the index array conversion device according to claim 1, wherein the partial target array information D.sub.1 to D.sub.N is stored in a distributed state in memory (See Kubov: Figs. 12A-12B and [0123], a data distribution model 720 shows the index array IA (block 702) distributed into the index chunk “0” 710, the index chunk “1” 711,... and the index chunk “C” 712 respectively grouped with a data chunk “0” 730, a data chunk “1” 731,... and a data chunk “C” 732, formed by division of the data array DA, in a chunk “0” 740, a chunk “1” 741, and a chunk “C” 742. The index array is divided and distributed into index array index and data chunks, the partial target array and information).
As per claim 6, Kubov in view of Iwashita and further in view of Heasman teaches the index array conversion device according to claim 2, wherein the partial target array information D.sub.i to D.sub.N is stored in a distributed state in memory (See Kubov: Figs. 12A-12B and [0123], a data distribution model 720 shows the index array IA (block 702) distributed into the index chunk “0” 710, the index chunk “1” 711,... and the index chunk “C” 712 respectively grouped with a data chunk “0” 730, a data chunk “1” 731,... and a data chunk “C” 732, formed by division of the data array DA, in a chunk “0” 740, a chunk “1” 741, and a chunk “C” 742. The index array is divided and distributed into index array index and data chunks, the partial target array and information to store).
As per claim 7, Kubov in view of Iwashita and further in view of Heasman teaches the index array conversion device according to claim 3, wherein the partial target array information D.sub.i to D.sub.N is stored in a distributed state in memory (See Kubov: Figs. 12A-12B and [0123], a data distribution model 720 shows the index array IA (block 702) distributed into the index chunk “0” 710, the index chunk “1” 711,... and the index chunk “C” 712 respectively grouped with a data chunk “0” 730, a data chunk “1” 731,... and a data chunk “C” 732, formed by division of the data array DA, in a chunk “0” 740, a chunk “1” 741, and a chunk “C” 742. The index array is divided and distributed into index array index and data chunks, the partial target array and information to store).
As per claim 8, Kubov in view of Iwashita and further in view of Heasman teaches the index array conversion device according to claim 4, wherein the partial target array information D.sub.i to D.sub.N is stored in a distributed state in memory (See Kubov: Figs. 12A-12B and [0123], a data distribution model 720 shows the index array IA (block 702) distributed into the index chunk “0” 710, the index chunk “1” 711,... and the index chunk “C” 712 respectively grouped with a data chunk “0” 730, a data chunk “1” 731,... and a data chunk “C” 732, formed by division of the data array DA, in a chunk “0” 740, a chunk “1” 741, and a chunk “C” 742. The index array is divided and distributed into index array index and data chunks, the partial target array and information to store).
As per claims 9 and 12-13, the claims recite an index array conversion method, implemented by a processor, comprising the steps recited as operations of the claims 1 and 4-5, respectively, performed by the device described above and as rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubov in view of Iwashita and further in view of Heasman.
Therefore, the claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected claims 1 and 4-5, respectively.
As per claims 14 and 17-18, the claims recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing an index array conversion program (See Kubov: [0134], computer-readable signal medium including any transitory intangible medium that is capable of storing instructions for execution by a machine) for causing a computer to execute the steps recited as operations of the claims 1 and 4-5, respectively, performed by the device described above and as rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubov in view of Iwashita and further in view of Heasman.
Therefore, the claims 14 and 17-18 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected claims 1 and 4-5, respectively.
As per claim 19, Kubov in view of Iwashita and further in view of Heasman teaches the index array conversion device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the software instructions to:
for i = 1 to N, when no indices in a range
PNG
media_image4.png
27
161
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(do = 0) are stored, generate the partial index array information Ki as empty and perform no subtraction process for the empty partial index array information Ki (See Heasman: [0121], the sensor array 102 includes four electrode devices 110a-d, connected via the respective leads 140a-d of each, and further via a cable section 142, to a local processing device 144 and without indices created to the array ).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is 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.
Contact Information
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the da