Detailed Action
This action is in response to Applicant's communications filed 03 September 2024.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 was/were amended. No claims were cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are pending in this Application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant asserts that “The Office Action also indicates that under Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant's claims are, "not integrated into a practical application." This is also respectfully controverted by Applicant. MPEP 2106.04(d) supports the view that under Step 2A, Prong Two, pending claims indicate a "practical application" is present. MPEP 2106.04(d) indicates that a "relevant consideration[] for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application" is whether embodiments are related to, "an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. .. ." Applicant currently amends claims 1, 8, and 15, to indicate these embodiments are directed towards the "construction of a customized machine learning model based on grammar of input data for structured inputs,...." Further details regarding the "practical application" are contained in Applicant's embodiments discussed herein. Furthermore, with regard to Step 2A, Prong Two, please note that the August 4, 2025 Memo from Charles Kim (the "AUGUST 4, 2025 MEMO") further supports Applicant's position. The AUGUST 4, 2025 MEMO indicates, "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." As mentioned, Applicant's claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards, "construction of a customized machine learning model based on grammar of input data for structured inputs" and in order to achieve this goal, clauses 3 and 4 include various steps such as, "adapting modularly each of the one or more grammar entities to one or more grammar entity functions to create a machine learning model, the machine learning model comprising a modular dynamic neural network composed of one or more smaller grammar entity neural networks, the structure of the modular dynamic neural network dependent upon structure of the unstructured or structured language input data and including a plurality of smaller component networks, each of the plurality of smaller component networks interconnected by rules associated with input data format; and constructing the machine learning model by aggregating the plurality of smaller component networks, the machine learning model incorporating structure of the unstructured or structured language input data." (Remarks pg. 6-9)
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as a whole is still directed to abstract idea mental process. While the newly added limitation does include machine learning, this machine learning model limitation does not appear to be any improvement in technology. The claim limitation the machine learning model comprising a modular dynamic neural network composed of one or more smaller grammar entity neural networks,” is reciting generic computer components see MPEP 2106.05(f). The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20 are 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.
The term “smaller” in claims 1, 8 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smaller” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected for being dependency of independent claim 1.
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected for being dependency of independent claim 8.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected for being dependency of independent claim 15.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“…accessing unstructured or structured language input data input into a computer program; arranging the unstructured or structured language input data into one or more grammar entities using a domain knowledge, the domain knowledge applied to find grammar entities relevant to a learning problem; adapting modularly each of the one or more grammar entities to one or more grammar entity functions to create a machine learning model, … the structure of the modular dynamic neural network dependent upon structure of the unstructured or structured language input data and including a plurality of smaller component networks, each of the plurality of smaller component networks interconnected by rules associated with input data format;”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]). The machine learning model limitation is recited at a high level of generality which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “A method for construction of a customized machine learning model based on grammar of input data for structured inputs by a processor, the method comprising… the machine learning model comprising a modular dynamic neural network composed of one or more smaller grammar entity neural networks,… and constructing the machine learning model by aggregating the plurality of smaller component networks, the machine learning model incorporating structure of the unstructured or structured language input data.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the one or more grammar entities are tokens, semantic expressions, subsets of tokens and semantic expressions, or a combination thereof.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 3
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“further including annotating the one or more grammar entities with the property value.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 4
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein arranging input data into one or more grammar entities further includes formatting the input data into a selected arrangement of the one or more grammar entities.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 5
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“further including statically mapping the one or more grammar entities to the one or more grammar entity functions.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 7
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“further including using one or more rules to create each of the one or more grammar entity functions.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claims 8-12 and 14
Claims 8-12 and 14 recites analogous limitations to claims 2-5 and 7 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims2-5 and 7.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 20
Claims 15-18 and 20 recites analogous limitations to claims 2-4 and 7 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 2-4 and 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights