DETAILED ACTION
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to a mental process of collecting data, generating a data mask, correlation and organization of collected data, process the collected data with the mask, and performing a generic solution without significantly more. The claims are also directed to mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-3 describe a system, claims 4-6 describe a method, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-3
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites to access a plurality cross correlated, partially corrupted data sets; generate a corruption mask for each accessed cross correlated, partially corrupted data set; extract features from data sets; organize the data sets based on the features; train a correlation network on a plurality of pairs of corrupted data sets and their corresponding corruption masks; process a partially corrupted data set and its corresponding corruption mask through a trained correlation network to reconstruct data by organizing segments into similarity groups, form a correlation matrix of data segments, analyzing patterns across the matrix to identify regularities, match corrupted regions with similar uncorrupted segments, inferring replacement values using the patterns and relationships, iteratively refining reconstruction through multiple passes, and restore a corrupted portion of the data sets. The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve collecting data, generating a data mask, and using a “network” that use high-level, generic computing modules to perform correlation of the collected data to the generated mask and analyze inter-data relationships.
The applicant has amended the claims to recite more mathematical concepts as to the training of the correlation network. The examiner interprets these new limitations as merely mathematical concepts that can be performed in the mind using a basic AI module.
The claims, as amended, recite further mental processes such as organizing data, forming a matrix with the organized data, analyzing the matrix data, matching data segments, inferring value data, and refining reconstruction iteratively.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites the mask is a probabilistic matrix aligned with the input data, where each element represents a likelihood or degree of corruption for a corresponding data point. The claim describes a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain mathematical concepts directed to performing the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept.
Claim 3 merely recites possible types of data being collected.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites “A system for recovering lost or corrupted data using a correlation network, comprising: a plurality of programming instructions that, when operating on a processor, cause the computing device to…” perform the process Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor and components cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 also recites to restore a partially corrupted portion of the partially corrupted data set. The limitation describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to generically applying a resolution, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. The claims do not recite what transformation of the system or how the system is benefited upon the restore process. The claims recite only restoring data, which can be merely on paper or a generic storage, not restoring data to transform a machine, etc.
Claims 2-3 describe further details regarding the types of data and/or statistical/mathematical calculations. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claims 1-3 contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The processors and data storage devices recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of data, comparing data to a generated mask and training a “network” with data, and generically applying a resolution to an identified problem describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 4-6
Claims 4-6 contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-3, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 4-6 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-3.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 4-6 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 4-6 are therefore not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has amended and has argued the new limitations overcome the USC 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. On pages 5-8 of the Remarks, dated 1/20/26, the applicant has argued the limitations cannot be performed as a mental process. The applicant argues the process cannot practically be performed in the human mind or on paper as it is a specific ordered combination of training a correlation network through gradient computation and parameter updates, using the network to organize the data into groups using masks, forming correlation matrices with the groups, analyzing patterns, and iteratively refining the process based on the networks. The examiner maintains that all these limitations can be performed via the human mind using generic computing components, e.g. a generic AI component. That is, there is nothing in the limitations that cannot be performed with the human mind regardless of the time it takes to perform the steps. By merely reciting more mathematical concepts to be performed as part of training does not necessarily teach the training cannot be performed by a human using a computer as a tool. The applicant would need to recite language that cannot be performed with the human mind using a computer as a tool. Such examples can be found in the MPEP in section 2106.04(a)(1) in examples such as loading a BIOS in a computer, rearranging icons on screen based on memory allocation, training a neural network with facial images with transformation of said images.
The applicant has suggested that the MPEP, sections 2106.04(a)(2) III A, recite processes that have been interpreted as not being a mental process. The examiner interprets the presented examples as examples as argued above, in that, they use the actual device itself and features thereof as to not recite a mental process, e.g. the GPS calculates pseudo ranges of the distance of a plurality of satellites, detecting suspicious activity using network packets, data encryption, and digital image manipulation. The examiner directs the attention to section C 3, as an example as to using a computer as tool wherein collected data is then used as a computing tool to calculate grading values to identify resultant values. This combined with the section of 2106.04(a)(2)C, teaches wherein the new limitations are directed to mathematical calculations; that is, the claims recite a human mind using a computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations.
The applicant has also argued the claims are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the claims are directed to a possible technological solution if the solution was actually performed on the system to transform the system. The claims stop short of this by merely reconstructing a data set, but the restored data set is not applied to the system as to transform the system. As is written, the claims are merely directed to an idea of a solution.
Conclusion
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 date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113