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 .
Status of the Application
2. Claim 1-16 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 1/10/25 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first intermediate representation generator configured to generate a first intermediate representation; a second intermediate representation generator configured to generate a second intermediate representation; an output unit configured to output….; an intermediate representation acquisition unit configured to acquire…..; an integrated representation generator configured to generate an integrated representation; an adjustment unit configured to adjust a parameter; a derivation unit configured to derive….in claim 9;
a function acquisition unit configured to acquire …., an apparatus difference correction unit configured to correct…. in claim 10;
a response data acquisition unit configured to acquire….., a model generator configured to generate in claim 11;
a determination unit configured to determine…., an update unit configured to update…. in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a first intermediate representation generator configured to generate a first intermediate representation; a second intermediate representation generator configured to generate a second intermediate representation; an output unit configured to output….; an intermediate representation acquisition unit configured to acquire…..; an integrated representation generator configured to generate an integrated representation; an adjustment unit configured to adjust a parameter; a derivation unit configured to derive….in claim 9;
a function acquisition unit configured to acquire …., an apparatus difference correction unit configured to correct…. in claim 10;
a response data acquisition unit configured to acquire….., a model generator configured to generate in claim 11;
a determination unit configured to determine…., an update unit configured to update…. in claim 12” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The filed specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function of different unit.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of claim 9-12. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more as fully discussed below.
9. Regarding Independent claim 1, 9, and 16:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 1 is drawn to an information processing method, claim 9 is drawn to an information processing system, and claim 16 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to execute processing. Therefore claim 1, 9, and 16 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Independent claim 1, 9, and 16 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, and 16 recites claim limitation of “adjusting parameters of an integrated representation conversion function to minimize a difference in integrated representations obtained by applying the integrated representation conversion function to the second intermediate representations acquired from the apparatuses, and deriving an apparatus difference correction function for correcting an apparatus difference between the apparatuses based on each of the first intermediate representations acquired from the apparatuses and the integrated representation conversion function for which the parameters are adjusted”;
Claim 9 recites “generate a first intermediate representation by applying an intermediate representation conversion function; generate a second intermediate representation by applying the intermediate representation conversion function; generate an integrated representation by applying an integrated representation conversion function to each of the acquired second intermediate representations; adjust a parameter of the integrated representation conversion function; derive an apparatus difference correction function for correcting an apparatus difference….” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mathematical concept and enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform the claimed function using pen and paper.
Thus, these claimed functions of claim 1, 9, and 16 are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or an abstract idea processed by a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 1, and 16 recites additional limitation of “acquiring, from apparatuses, first intermediate representations obtained by applying an intermediate representation conversion function to first data individually used by the apparatuses, acquiring, from the apparatuses, second intermediate representations obtained by applying the intermediate representation conversion function to second data commonly used by the apparatuses”;
Claim 9 recites additional limitation of “output the generated first intermediate representation and second intermediate representation; acquire the first intermediate representation and the second intermediate representation output”.
The claimed functions are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that acquiring of data and output the representation are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 further recite additional limitation of “a computer to execute processing”,
Claim 9 further recite additional limitation of server and different units;
and Claim 16 further recite additional limitation of " A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program” is considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.95(f)).
The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional limitation that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The court decisions have determined that this additional element as discussed above in step 2A of acquiring and output function to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data collecting (i.e., acquiring) and data outputting (i.e., output) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As such, claim 1, 9 and 16 are not patent eligible.
10. Dependent claims 2-8, and 10-15:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 2-8 are drawn to is drawn to an information processing method, and claim 10-15 are drawn to an information processing system, therefore claim 2-8, and 10-15 are falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 2-8, and 10-15 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1, 9, and 16.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Dependent claim 2-8, and 10-15 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2, recites claim limitation of “using the integrated representations to set a classification problem for classifying the apparatuses, and deriving an apparatus difference correction function…..”;
Claim 3 recites limitation of “wherein the apparatus difference correction function is described by a shift matrix for correcting a difference in averages between the first data, and a rotation matrix for correcting a difference in variance-covariance between the first data, and the shift matrix and the rotation matrix are described as a linear combination of coefficient matrices and a linear combination of diagonal matrices, respectively, and the coefficient matrix is taken outside the first intermediate representation and optimized to derive the apparatus difference correction function” that includes the formula;
Claim 4, and 11 recites limitation of “generating a prediction model for outputting a predicted value…..”
Claim 5, and 12 recites limitation of “ determining necessity of update of the prediction model in accordance with a degree of deviation….”.
The discussed above all limitations that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mathematical concept and enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform the claimed function using pen and paper.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or an abstract idea processed by a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 4, and 11 recites additional limitation of “acquiring response data output from the apparatuses”;
Claim 10 recites additional limitation of “acquire the apparatus difference correction function derived by the analysis facility server”.
The claimed functions are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that data acquiring are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 10-12 recites additional limitation of “server and different unit” is considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.95(f)).
The claimed server, and different units are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications using generic computer component such as processor, memory etc. Even considered in combination, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer with a memory and processor recited at a high level of generality is not a practical application of abstract idea.
Claim 6, and 13 recites additional limitation that includes the apparatus is a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (semiconductor manufacturing field) (MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 7-8, and 14-15 recites additional limitation includes type of first data and correction target includes different data. The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional limitation that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The court decisions have determined that this additional element as discussed above in step 2A of acquiring and output function to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data collecting (i.e., acquiring) and data outputting (i.e., output) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As such, dependent claim 2-8, and 10-15 are not patent eligible.
Pertinent Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest prior art Imakura (Pub: 2022/0075898) disclose a distributed data integration device including an acquisition unit configured to acquire, for a piece of analysis target data, an anchor data intermediate representation and an analysis target intermediate representation, the anchor data intermediate representation being an intermediate representation obtained by converting anchor data by a first function, the anchor data being data commonly used in integration of a plurality of the pieces of analysis target data that are distributed, the analysis target intermediate representation being an intermediate representation obtained by converting the piece of analysis target data by the first function, an anchor data conversion unit configured to convert, for the piece of analysis target data, a plurality of the anchor data intermediate representations acquired by the acquisition unit by a second function, a calculation unit configured to calculate, for the piece of analysis target data, the second function that minimizes a difference between the plurality of the anchor data intermediate representations converted by the anchor data conversion unit, and an analysis target data conversion unit configured to convert, for the piece of analysis target data, the analysis target intermediate representation acquired by the acquisition unit by the second function calculated by the calculation unit (Para. [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The claim 1-16 are allowable once the outstanding rejection 35 U.S.C 112(b), 35 U.S.C 112(a), and 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection is overcome as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571)272-9774. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights